lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 20 153714 STE 12 SA

155 Wychwood Ave

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
8 June 2020
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
155 Wychwood Ave
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
8 June 2020
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
39 units; 3,144 m² gross floor area

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

INACTIVE July 2022 Revised Proposal: a 8-storey mixed-use building containing 204.24 square metres of non-residential gross floor area and 3143.86 square metres of residential gross floor area, with one underground level. A total of 39 residential dwelling units, 16 vehicular parking spaces, and 84 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. 2020 - Proposal for a 8-storey mixed-use building containing 250 square metres of non-residential gross floor area and 3016.2 square metres of residential gross floor area. A total of 29 residential dwelling units are proposed.

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Josh Matlow2
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Josh MatlowCouncillor staff2017 July 2020

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Comparison with similar applications

Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied511

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied32—100% (n=4)0%3%0.00
Matched, unlobbied72511100% (n=7)0%0%0.05
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (n=96)3%3%0.04

Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.