Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 13 239332 STE 27 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 20 September 2013
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 77 Charles St W
- Ward
- Ward 27
- Submitted
- 20 September 2013
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 11 273120 STE 11 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Addendum to existing Site Plan Agreement secured through related historical file 04-149456 to permit limited changes to grade related landscaping and landscaping details. Also see SA 11-273210 STE 27 SE
Linked lobbying registrations
No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.
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), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.