Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 170530 NNY 08 SA

34 Montgomery Ave; 36 Montgomery Ave; 40 Montgomery Ave; 42 Montgomery Ave; 46 Montgomery Ave; 48 Montgomery Ave; 54 Montgomery Ave; 58 Montgomery Ave; 64 Montgomery Ave; 66 Montgomery Ave; 70 Montgomery Ave; 2430 Yonge St

Ward 8 · Mike ColleDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 30 June 2022; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 16; 6 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 34 Montgomery Ave; 36 Montgomery Ave; 40 Montgomery Ave; 42 Montgomery Ave; 46 Montgomery Ave; 48 Montgomery Ave; 54 Montgomery Ave; 58 Montgomery Ave; 64 Montgomery Ave; 66 Montgomery Ave; 70 Montgomery Ave; 2430 Yonge St
Ward: Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted: 30 June 2022
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 314 units
Related file: 22 170531 NNY 08 OZ

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

Description

Proposal for a redevelopment of a 27-storey mixed-use building with 314 residential dwelling units, 88 vehicular parking spaces, 146 bicycle parking spaces, and one loading space.

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

First capital Realty · registration SM34444
Planning application associated with the redevelopment of 34-70 Montgomery Avenue.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM34444: Planning application associated with the redevelopment of 34-70 Montgomery Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 170530 NNY 08 SA at 36 Montgomery Ave: Proposal for a redevelopment of a 27-storey mixed-use building with 314 residential dwelling units, 88 vehicular parking spaces, 146 bicycle parking spaces, and one loading space. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Planning application associated with the redevelopment of 34-70 Montgomery Avenue.
Matched fields
address
34-70 MONTGOMERY AVE
application_address
34 MONTGOMERY AVE
First capital Realty · registration SM34118
Planning applications associated with the redevelopment of 34-70 Montgomery Ave.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM34118: Planning applications associated with the redevelopment of 34-70 Montgomery Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 170530 NNY 08 SA at 36 Montgomery Ave: Proposal for a redevelopment of a 27-storey mixed-use building with 314 residential dwelling units, 88 vehicular parking spaces, 146 bicycle parking spaces, and one loading space. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Planning applications associated with the redevelopment of 34-70 Montgomery Ave.
Matched fields
address
34-70 MONTGOMERY AVE
application_address
34 MONTGOMERY AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 16 communications · 6 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Mike Colle11
Mike Colle5

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Mike Colle	Councillor staff	11	2	4 June 2024
Mike Colle	Member of council	5	4	24 August 2023

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

StrategyCorp Inc.1 registration

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 8

25 lobbied · 69 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=2

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied8%
Matched, unlobbied4%

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 8: 25 lobbied and 69 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	25	—	100% (n=3)	0%	8%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	69	—	100% (n=2)	0%	4%	0.00

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=63)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,236	—	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.