lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 10 249603 NNY 25 SA

100 Ranleigh Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
30 August 2010
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
9
7 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
100 Ranleigh Ave
Ward
Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted
30 August 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
46 units
Related file
10 249601 NNY 25 OZ

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

Description

Revised proposal: to permit a 4-storey apartment building with 46 dwelling units for seniors with the ground floor multi-purpose space for place of worship and community program purposes, and accessory office space. A total of 46 parking spaces and 1 loading space to be provided in an internal parking 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

3 linked registrations · 9 communications · 7 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 25 Don Valley West3
  • Office of Councillor Robinson, Ward 252
  • Ward 23 Willowdale2
  • Office of Councillor Filion, Ward 231
  • Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence1
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 25 Don Valley WestMember of council326 November 2012
Office of Councillor Robinson, Ward 25Councillor staff226 November 2012
Ward 23 WillowdaleMember of council215 November 2012
Office of Councillor Filion, Ward 23Councillor staff114 October 2012
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council115 October 2012

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 15

12 lobbied · 41 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 15: 12 lobbied and 41 matched unlobbied applications in 10 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied12Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied41Hidden: 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.