Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 15 248458 STE 27 SA
2 Dundonald St; 4 Dundonald St; 7 Gloucester St; 9 Gloucester St; 11 Gloucester St; 587 Yonge St; 593 Yonge St; 597 Yonge St; 599 Yonge St
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 6 November 2015
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 2 Dundonald St; 4 Dundonald St; 7 Gloucester St; 9 Gloucester St; 11 Gloucester St; 587 Yonge St; 593 Yonge St; 597 Yonge St; 599 Yonge St
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Submitted
- 6 November 2015
- 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
- 528 units
- Related file
- 12 235622 STE 27 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
A Site Plan Control application to develop a 44-storey building, containing 528 residential units and 3,242 square metres of retail/commercial space. Zoning By-law Amendment File No. 12 235622 STE 27 OZ. In April 2013, the owner filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (PL130332). Zoning By-law Amendment was approved by OMB in Spring 2016, enacted in June 2016. By-law 2016-0778.
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
Cresford Developments Inc. · registration SM22918
587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
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 SM22918: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 248458 STE 27 SA at 593 Yonge St: A Site Plan Control application to develop a 44-storey building, containing 528 residential units and 3,242 square metres of retail/commercial space. Zoning By-law Amendment File No. 12 235622 STE 27 OZ. In April 2013, the owner filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (PL130332). Zoning By-l… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 599 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 599 YONGE ST
Cresford Developments Inc. · registration SM22802
587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto
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 SM22802: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 248458 STE 27 SA at 593 Yonge St: A Site Plan Control application to develop a 44-storey building, containing 528 residential units and 3,242 square metres of retail/commercial space. Zoning By-law Amendment File No. 12 235622 STE 27 OZ. In April 2013, the owner filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (PL130332). Zoning By-l… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 599 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 599 YONGE ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
2 linked registrations · 8 communications · 2 meetings · 3 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 10 March 2016 |
| Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 30 March 2016 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 24 March 2016 |
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.
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 13
56 lobbied · 128 matchedApproval 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 | 56 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 7% | 0.16 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 128 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 2% | 0.01 |
| 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.