Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 14 164280 NNY 16 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 29 May 2014
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 2384 Yonge St; 2388 Yonge St
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Submitted
- 29 May 2014
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 233 units
- Related file
- 13 127993 NNY 16 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
27-storey mixed building consisting of 233 residential units and 1441 square metres of commercial area on the first two floors.
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
Rockport Homes Limited · registration SM18545
2388/2384 Yonge Street
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM18545: 2388/2384 Yonge Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 164280 NNY 16 SA at 2388 Yonge St: 27-storey mixed building consisting of 233 residential units and 1441 square metres of commercial area on the first two floors. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2388/2384 Yonge Street
Matched fields
- address
- 2384 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2384 YONGE ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 17 communications · 15 meetings · 3 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 14 | 13 | 25 May 2018 |
| Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 7 February 2019 |
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 12 November 2012 |
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 · 70 matchedMedian days
Approval 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 | 25 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 8% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 70 | 727 | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 4% | 0.00 |
| 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.