lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 188162 STE 04 SA

2280 Dundas St W

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
9 August 2022
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
2280 Dundas St W
Ward
Ward 4 · Gord Perks
Submitted
9 August 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
2,312 units; 161,971 m² gross floor area
Related file
22 175915 STE 04 OZ

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

Description

The Proposal includes six mixed-use residential buildings on six development blocks. It will offer both ownership and rental housing options, and will be anchored around a new community public park and public street system. The redevelopment proposes a total gross floor area of 161,971 square metres comprised of 151,624 square metres of residential and 10,347 square metres of non-residential uses. The Proposed Development includes approximately 2,312 residential units in a range of unit sizes, and includes 1,156 rental units. The proposal includes a 3,405 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
  • Councillor Perks, Ward 41
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Councillor Perks, Ward 4Councillor staff1124 June 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 4

17 lobbied · 33 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 4: 17 lobbied and 33 matched unlobbied applications in 13 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied33Hidden: 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.