Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 08 229834 STE 20 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 15 December 2008
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 21 Widmer St
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 15 December 2008
- 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
- 447 units
- Related file
- 08 118571 STE 20 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Proposed 43 storey mixed-use building with 447 dwelling units & 4 levels of underground parking, a portion of which would be used as commercial parking garage. A two storey glazed portion of the building (proposed to be devoted to Artscape) would be included in the proposal.
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
The Daniels Corporation · registration SM11656
21 Widmer Street Development Application Zoning By-Law Amendment Site Plan
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM11656: 21 Widmer Street Development Application Zoning By-Law Amendment Site Plan (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 229834 STE 20 SA at 21 Widmer St: Proposed 43 storey mixed-use building with 447 dwelling units & 4 levels of underground parking, a portion of which would be used as commercial parking garage. A two storey glazed portion of the building (proposed to be devoted to Artscape) would be included in the proposal. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 21 Widmer Street Development Application Zoning By-Law Amendment Site Plan
Matched fields
- address
- 21 WIDMER ST
- application_address
- 21 WIDMER 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.
- Daniels HR CorporationSM16704 · 5 July 2011 · “21 Widmer Street”
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.