lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 230896 ESC 22 SA

2575 Pharmacy Ave

Ward 22 · Nick MantasDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
18 November 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
5
5 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
2575 Pharmacy Ave
Ward
Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
Submitted
18 November 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
321 units; 22,800 m² gross floor area
Related file
22 230897 ESC 22 OZ

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

Description

Proposal to permit a 3-storey (or 19.5 metres inclusive of the mechanical penthouse) place of worship building with an ancillary day nursery, as well as a 25-storey (or 84.5metres inclusive of the mechanical penthouse) residential building at 2575 Pharmacy Avenue and part of 100 Sprucewood Court. Overall, the proposal would introduce a total gross floor area of 22,800 square metres and would contain 321 new dwelling units, 299 vehicular parking spaces, and 350 bicycle parking spaces.

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

3 linked registrations · 5 communications · 5 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Nick MantasMember of council4410 September 2024
Nick MantasCouncillor staff1118 April 2023

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 22

7 lobbied · 14 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22: 7 lobbied and 14 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied7Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied14Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.