lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 192792 NNY 08 SA

589 Lawrence Ave W; 591 Lawrence Ave W; 593 Lawrence Ave W; 595 Lawrence Ave W; 597 Lawrence Ave W; 599 Lawrence Ave W

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
18 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
589 Lawrence Ave W; 591 Lawrence Ave W; 593 Lawrence Ave W; 595 Lawrence Ave W; 597 Lawrence Ave W; 599 Lawrence Ave W
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
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
16 units; 2,449 m² gross floor area
Related file
22 192793 NNY 08 OZ

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

Description

Proposed 3-storey (13.06 metres excluding mechanical elements) institutional "Kollel" building, along with a 4-storey (13.56 metres, excluding mechanical) rental apartment building featuring affordable rental units. The Kollel building will include 1,468 square meters of gross floor area while the apartment building will contain 16 dwelling units and a total of 2,449 square metres of residential gross floor area. The proposal will result in a gross floor area density of 1.46 times the area of the lot.

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 8 Eglinton-Lawrence1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 8 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council1112 April 2022

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied25—100% (n=3)0%8%0.00
Matched, unlobbied69—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
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.