lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 245537 WET 05 SA

175 Eileen Ave; 185 Eileen Ave

Ward 5 · Frances NunziataDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
6 December 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
4
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
6
4 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
175 Eileen Ave; 185 Eileen Ave
Ward
Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
Submitted
6 December 2021
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
21 151073 WET 05 OZ

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

Description

Proposed Site Plan Control application for 58 back-to-back townhouses in two blocks.

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

4 linked registrations · 6 communications · 4 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 5 York South-WestonMember of council4315 November 2021
Ward 5 York South WestonCouncillor staff1010 November 2021
Frances NunziataMember of council1123 March 2023

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 5

15 lobbied · 40 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 5: 15 lobbied and 40 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied15Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied40Hidden: 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.