lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 250160 ESC 24 SA

3434 Lawrence Ave E

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
20 December 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
3434 Lawrence Ave E
Ward
Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
Submitted
20 December 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
642 units
Related file
21 250150 ESC 24 OZ

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

Description

The proposal contemplates 2 L-shaped buildings with building elements ranging in height from 8 storeys to 29 storeys. A total of 642 residential units are proposed comprised of 402 one-bedroom units (62.6%), 172 two-bedroom units (26.8%), and 68 three-bedroom units (10.6%). A total of 2,718.3 square metres of amenity space is proposed, comprised of 2,080.4 and 637.9 square metres of indoor and outdoor space respectively. The applicant proposes 557 vehicular parking spaces, 482 bike parking space as well as a Type G and Type C loading space. Lastly, the proposal contemplates the creation and conveyance of two blocks (namely a public street & 1200 square metre public park).

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 · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 24 Scarborough-GuildwoodMember of council1118 January 2022

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.

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 24

6 lobbied · 15 matched

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

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 24: 6 lobbied and 15 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied6Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied15Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.