Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 22 240925 NNY 08 SA
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 19 December 2022
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 165 Tycos Dr
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Submitted
- 19 December 2022
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 4,309 m² gross floor area
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Approval application to permit a 5-storey office building. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 4309.33 square metres and includes 34 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
Anatolia Capital Inc · registration SM35076
165 Tycos Drive site plan conditions and environmental assessments
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM35076: 165 Tycos Drive site plan conditions and environmental assessments (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 240925 NNY 08 SA at 165 Tycos Dr: Site Plan Approval application to permit a 5-storey office building. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 4309.33 square metres and includes 34 parking spaces. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 165 Tycos Drive site plan conditions and environmental assessments
Matched fields
- address
- 165 TYCOS DR
- application_address
- 165 TYCOS DR
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 15 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 14 | 0 | 11 June 2024 |
| Mike Colle | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 8 January 2024 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Annatolia TileSM33469 · 15 July 2022 · “165 Tycos Drive”
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| 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 |
| 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.