Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 12 122807 STE 19 SA

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 15 February 2012; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 17; 2 meetings · 13 offices

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 109-111 Ossington Avenue
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 15 February 2012
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: 86 units
Related file: 12 122813 STE 19 OZ

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

Description

Proposal to construct 6 sty condo with ground floor commercial. 86 residential units and 2 levels of below grade parking.

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

Ossington Community Association · registration SM19350
109-111 Ossington Avenue
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM19350: 109-111 Ossington Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 122807 STE 19 SA at 109-111 Ossington Ave: Proposal to construct 6 sty condo with ground floor commercial. 86 residential units and 2 levels of below grade parking. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 109-111 Ossington Avenue
Matched fields
address
109-111 OSSINGTON AVE
application_address
109-111 OSSINGTON AVE
Ossington Community Association · registration SM19110
Condominium development at 109 Ossington Ave.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM19110: Condominium development at 109 Ossington Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 122807 STE 19 SA at 109-111 Ossington Ave: Proposal to construct 6 sty condo with ground floor commercial. 86 residential units and 2 levels of below grade parking. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Condominium development at 109 Ossington Ave.
Matched fields
address
109 OSSINGTON AVE
application_address
109-111 OSSINGTON AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 17 communications · 2 meetings · 13 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina4
Mike Layton2
Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park1
Ward 18 Davenport1
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina1
Ward 21 St. Paul's1
Ward 22 St. Paul's1
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale1

Data table· 13 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	4	2	2 July 2013
Mike Layton	Councillor staff	2	0	5 July 2013
Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 18 Davenport	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 21 St. Paul's	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 22 St. Paul's	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 31 Beaches-East York	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013
Ward 32 Beaches-East York	Member of council	1	0	28 May 2013

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Iler Campbell, LLP2 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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied2%

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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.