Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 13 115557 NNY 10 SA
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 4 February 2013
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 719 Sheppard Ave W
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Submitted
- 4 February 2013
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 13 115551 NNY 10 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
This is a technical submission for engineering review to determine whether there is a way to satisfy the City in terms of an acceptable solution to the sanitary capacity issues (there is currently a holding (H) on the zoning). The hold cannot be lifted until sanitary improvements are constructed + operational. Final site plan approval cannot be issued until the hold is lifted.
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
Format Group Inc. · registration SM18732
719 Sheppard Avenue West
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.90
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 SM18732: 719 Sheppard Avenue West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 115557 NNY 10 SA at 719 Sheppard Ave W: This is a technical submission for engineering review to determine whether there is a way to satisfy the City in terms of an acceptable solution to the sanitary capacity issues (there is currently a holding (H) on the zoning). The hold cannot be lifted until sanitary improvements are constructed + … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 719 Sheppard Avenue West
Matched fields
- address
- 719 SHEPPARD AVE W
- application_address
- 719 SHEPPARD AVE W
Format Group Inc. · registration SM18730
719 Sheppard Avenue West.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.90
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM18730: 719 Sheppard Avenue West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 115557 NNY 10 SA at 719 Sheppard Ave W: This is a technical submission for engineering review to determine whether there is a way to satisfy the City in terms of an acceptable solution to the sanitary capacity issues (there is currently a holding (H) on the zoning). The hold cannot be lifted until sanitary improvements are constructed + … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 719 Sheppard Avenue West.
Matched fields
- address
- 719 SHEPPARD AVE W
- application_address
- 719 SHEPPARD AVE W
Format Group Inc. · registration SM18731
719 Sheppard Ave W
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM18731: 719 Sheppard Ave W (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 115557 NNY 10 SA at 719 Sheppard Ave W: This is a technical submission for engineering review to determine whether there is a way to satisfy the City in terms of an acceptable solution to the sanitary capacity issues (there is currently a holding (H) on the zoning). The hold cannot be lifted until sanitary improvements are constructed + … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 719 Sheppard Ave W
Matched fields
- address
- 719 SHEPPARD AVE W
- application_address
- 719 SHEPPARD AVE W
Lobbying on linked registrations
3 linked registrations · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 10 York Centre | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 30 November 2012 |
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 6
17 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.