lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 12 139601 ESC 44 SA

17 Island Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
20 March 2012
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
5
0 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
17 Island Rd
Ward
Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
Submitted
20 March 2012
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
12 139597 ESC 44 OZ

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

Description

A Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application to permit 50, 3-storey stacked condominium townhouse units in two blocks. OMB appeal PL131192 approved May 14, 2014 in principle, final order issued March 25, 2015

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

1 linked registration · 5 communications · 0 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest1
  • Ward 37 Scarborough Centre1
  • Ward 38 Scarborough Centre1
  • Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt1
  • Ward 43 Scarborough East1
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 35 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council103 September 2013
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council103 September 2013
Ward 38 Scarborough CentreMember of council103 September 2013
Ward 40 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council103 September 2013
Ward 43 Scarborough EastMember of council103 September 2013

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 25

4 lobbied · 18 matched

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

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 25: 4 lobbied and 18 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied18Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.