Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 09 199001 STE 21 SA

1950 Bathurst St

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 22 December 2009; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1950 Bathurst St
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 22 December 2009
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 08 231395 STE 21 OZ

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

Description

site plan application to construct Private day school attached to existing Place of worship (sanctuary hall to be maintained on site) New Floor area is 783m2. - see 08 231395 STE 21 OZ for Re Zoning

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Holy Blossom Temple
SM25645 · 12 February 2018 · “1950 Bathurst Street”
Holy Blossom Temple
SM25651 · 12 February 2018 · “1950 Bathurst Street”
Holy Blossom Temple
SM20378 · 1 May 2014 · “1950 Bathurst Street”
Holy Blossom Temple
SM20015 · 20 January 2014 · “1950 Bathurst Street”
Holy Blossom Temple
SM20016 · 20 January 2014 · “1950 Bathurst st.”
Holy Blossom Temple
SM12309 · 26 September 2008 · “1950 Bathurst Street”
Holy Blossom Temple
SM11770 · 21 May 2008 · “1950 Bathurst 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 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied511

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied0%

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 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	32	—	100% (n=4)	0%	3%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	72	511	100% (n=7)	0%	0%	0.05

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.