lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 20 230414 ESC 20 SA

1161 Kingston Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
18 December 2020
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1161 Kingston Rd
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
18 December 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
5,371 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Site Plan Control Application proposing the development of an 8-storey mixed use building. The proposed GFA is 5,371 sq. m., comprised of 5,146 sq. m. residential and 225 sq. m. of grade related commercial space. The total number of dwelling units proposed is 57, comprised of 30 one bedroom units, 23 two bedroom units, and 4 three bedroom units. Vehicular access is proposed from Courcelette Rd. Two levels of underground parking provide 34 car parking spaces including one car-share space and one visitor parking space. 63 bicycle parking spaces 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 · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Parthi KandavelCouncillor staff1031 January 2024
Parthi KandavelMember of council1123 January 2024

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 20

11 lobbied · 34 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 20: 11 lobbied and 34 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied11Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied34Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.