lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 126234 ESC 20 SA

150 Clonmore Dr

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
23 March 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
16
10 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
150 Clonmore Dr
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
23 March 2022
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
22 115570 ESC 20 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Application for a stepped 12-storey multi-unit residential building, inclusive of a rooftop mechanical/amenity floor, and residential uses at-grade at the rear and above. Approximately 18,350.1 sq m (GFA), with a density of 5.0 FSI. 287 apartment dwellings consisting of 1 bachelor unit (0.3%), 98 one-bedroom units (34.1%), 94 one-bedroom plus den units (32.8%), 34 two-bedroom units (11.8%), 28 two-bedroom plus den units (9.8%), and 32 three-bedroom units (11.1%). There will be two levels of underground parking consisting of 158 vehicle parking spaces, and an additional 2 car share parking spaces and 2 visitor spaces at grade for a total of 162 parking spaces at the site

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

2 linked registrations · 16 communications · 10 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest11
  • Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest5
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 20 Scarborough SouthwestCouncillor staff11612 May 2022
Ward 20 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council5413 April 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 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 · 1,236 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 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 1,236 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.