lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 203871 STE 12 SA

61 Brownlow Ave; 63 Brownlow Ave; 65 Brownlow Ave; 67 Brownlow Ave; 69 Brownlow Ave; 71 Brownlow Ave; 73 Brownlow Ave; 75 Brownlow Ave

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
25 August 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
6
3 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
61 Brownlow Ave; 63 Brownlow Ave; 65 Brownlow Ave; 67 Brownlow Ave; 69 Brownlow Ave; 71 Brownlow Ave; 73 Brownlow Ave; 75 Brownlow Ave
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
25 August 2021
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
1,374 units; 97,194 m² gross floor area
Related file
21 203868 STE 12 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan application to permit a residential building with two towers, 59 and 55 storeys , comprising 1,374 residential units, daycare facility and a gross floor area of 97,194 square metres. The proposal involves rental replacement.

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

3 linked registrations · 6 communications · 3 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Josh Matlow3
  • Councillor Josh Matlow2
  • Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Josh MatlowMember of council339 April 2024
Councillor Josh MatlowCouncillor staff207 July 2021
Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul'sMember of council1017 June 2021

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.

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 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.