lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 19 262757 WET 07 SA

160 Chalkfarm Dr; 170 Chalkfarm Dr; 180 Chalkfarm Dr; 200 Chalkfarm Dr

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
18 December 2019
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
160 Chalkfarm Dr; 170 Chalkfarm Dr; 180 Chalkfarm Dr; 200 Chalkfarm Dr
Ward
Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
Submitted
18 December 2019
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
16 269918 WET 07 OZ

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

Description

To develop the property with a 31 storey apartment building with 467 residential unit.

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

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek2
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 7 Humber River-Black CreekMember of council2230 October 2020

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 7

5 lobbied · 28 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 7: 5 lobbied and 28 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied28Hidden: 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.