lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 113722 NNY 17 SA

71 Talara Dr

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
8 February 2021
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
71 Talara Dr
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
8 February 2021
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
378 units; 27,722 m² gross floor area
Related file
21 113721 NNY 17 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Application to permit the proposal for a 36-storey residential building containing a 4- to 5-storey podium fronting onto Talara Drive. The proposal includes a total of 378 residential dwelling units, 29 of which will be rental replacement units, with a total gross floor area of 27,722 square metres. The proposal will maintain permitted setbacks to Highway 401 to the south as well as to the adjacent properties to the east, west and to Talara Drive. The Proposal maintains a five-level underground parking garage with 197 parking spaces and 3 short-term parking spaces dedicated to pick-up and drop-off at grade.

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 17 Don Valley North2
  • Shelley Carroll1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 17 Don Valley NorthMember of council226 January 2021
Shelley CarrollCouncillor staff1119 April 2022

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 17

14 lobbied · 20 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 17: 14 lobbied and 20 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied14Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied20Hidden: 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.