lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 09 105613 WET 13 SA

66 Baby Point Rd

Ward 4 · Gord PerksDataset pageReport an error on this page
Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
29 January 2009
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
6
5 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
66 Baby Point Rd
Ward
Ward 4 · Gord Perks
Submitted
29 January 2009
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

To demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new 3-storey single- family dwelling with attached 2 car garage.

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

2 linked registrations · 6 communications · 5 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Doucette, Ward 133
  • Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park3
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Doucette, Ward 13Councillor staff339 June 2011
Ward 13 Parkdale-High ParkMember of council328 June 2011

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

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 4

17 lobbied · 33 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 4: 17 lobbied and 33 matched unlobbied applications in 13 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied33Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)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.