Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 10 189510 STE 20 SA
15 Beverley St; 17 Beverley St; 17R Beverley St; 19 Beverley St; 21 Beverley St; 23 Beverley St; 27 Beverley St
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 4 June 2010
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 15 Beverley St; 17 Beverley St; 17R Beverley St; 19 Beverley St; 21 Beverley St; 23 Beverley St; 27 Beverley St
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 4 June 2010
- 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
- 96 units
- Related file
- 09 133546 STE 20 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Revised Site Plan Approval application to permit the redevelopment of the lands for a 10-storey (33.6 metres) residential building with a total of 96 units. Proposal includes 64 vehicular parking spaces in three stories below grade.
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
BSAR Development Group · registration SM13002
15-27 Beverley Street
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM13002: 15-27 Beverley Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 189510 STE 20 SA at 17 Beverley St: Revised Site Plan Approval application to permit the redevelopment of the lands for a 10-storey (33.6 metres) residential building with a total of 96 units. Proposal includes 64 vehicular parking spaces in three stories below grade. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 15-27 Beverley Street
Matched fields
- address
- 15-27 BEVERLEY ST
- application_address
- 15 BEVERLEY ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval 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 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 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.