lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 20 165519 NNY 08 SA

515 Glencairn Ave; 2788 Bathurst St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
9 July 2020
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
3 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
515 Glencairn Ave; 2788 Bathurst St
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
9 July 2020
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
113 units
Related file
18 153780 NNY 15 OZ

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

Description

Development proposal comprising of a 9 storey mixed-use building and an on-site public park. Total GFA proposed: 24, 160 square metres including 20,833 sqaure metres residential, 2,500 square metres hotel and 827 square metres retail. 113 residential units are proposed with 222 vehicle parking spaces and 122 bicycle parking spaces. Accociated with the ZBA application 18 153780 NNY 15 OZ adopted by City Council on February 26, 2020. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.NY13.1

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 · 3 communications · 3 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence2
  • Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 15 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council225 March 2018
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council115 April 2018

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

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

None.

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 8

25 lobbied · 69 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=2

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied8%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8: 25 lobbied and 69 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied25—100% (n=3)0%8%0.00
Matched, unlobbied69—100% (n=2)0%4%0.00
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)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.