Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 22 192721 STE 13 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 18 August 2022
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 86 Lombard St; 100 Lombard St
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Submitted
- 18 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
- 480 units
- Related file
- 22 192723 STE 13 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Control application to permit a 59-storey mixed-use building containing 480 dwelling units, 4,321 square metres of office space, and 616 square metres of retail 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
FEP REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LTD. · registration SM33470
86, 100-108 Lombard Street and 103 Richmond Street
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
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 SM33470: 86, 100-108 Lombard Street and 103 Richmond Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 192721 STE 13 SA at 86 Lombard St: Site Plan Control application to permit a 59-storey mixed-use building containing 480 dwelling units, 4,321 square metres of office space, and 616 square metres of retail space. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 86, 100-108 Lombard Street and 103 Richmond Street
Matched fields
- address
- 100-108 LOMBARD ST
- application_address
- 100 LOMBARD ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Moise | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 2 March 2023 |
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 13
56 lobbied · 128 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 56 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 7% | 0.16 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 128 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 2% | 0.01 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (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.