Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 25 162380 STE 12 SA
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 20 May 2025
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 267 Merton St; 275 Merton St
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Submitted
- 20 May 2025
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 494 units; 31,321 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 24 231134 STE 12 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan for a 40-storey mixed use purpose built rental building with 494 dwelling units, of which 30% will be affordable rental units. A total gross floor area (GFA) of 31,321 m2 is proposed, including 132 m2 of ground floor non-residential GFA.
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
Collecdev Markee Limited Partnership · registration SM37515
275 Merton Street - Site Plan Approval, Building Permits, Construction Activities
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM37515: 275 Merton Street - Site Plan Approval, Building Permits, Construction Activities (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 25 162380 STE 12 SA at 275 Merton St: Site Plan for a 40-storey mixed use purpose built rental building with 494 dwelling units, of which 30% will be affordable rental units. A total gross floor area (GFA) of 31,321 m2 is proposed, including 132 m2 of ground floor non-residential GFA. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 275 Merton Street - Site Plan Approval, Building Permits, Construction Activities
Matched fields
- address
- 275 MERTON ST
- application_address
- 275 MERTON ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
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 12
32 lobbied · 72 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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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.