Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 08 232068 STE 32 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 29 December 2008
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 141 Kingswood Rd
- Ward
- Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
- Submitted
- 29 December 2008
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Proposal to construct a new detached SFD.
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
Eric Zupnik · registration SM12800
Proposed new home at 141 Kingswood Rd to be built.I would like to request a meeting with the local councillor to present the drawings and discuss the merits of the application.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
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 SM12800: Proposed new home at 141 Kingswood Rd to be built.I would like to request a meeting with the local councillor to present the drawings and discuss the merits of the application. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 232068 STE 32 SA at 141 Kingswood Rd: Proposal to construct a new detached SFD. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed new home at 141 Kingswood Rd to be built.I would like to request a meeting with the local councillor to present the drawings and discuss the merits …
Matched fields
- address
- 141 KINGSWOOD RD
- application_address
- 141 KINGSWOOD RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 32 Beaches-East York | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 18 March 2009 |
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 19
6 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.