Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 14 178862 STE 29 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 23 June 2014
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 125 O'Connor Dr
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Submitted
- 23 June 2014
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 14 178851 STE 29 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
To obtain site plan approval for the construction of a two-storey commercial building.
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
2315594 Ontario Inc. · registration SM19560
Re-Zoning and site plan application in regard to 125 O'Connor Drive, 1119 Pape Ave. and 1121 Pape Ave.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.71
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 SM19560: Re-Zoning and site plan application in regard to 125 O'Connor Drive, 1119 Pape Ave. and 1121 Pape Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 178862 STE 29 SA at 125 O'connor Dr: To obtain site plan approval for the construction of a two-storey commercial building. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-Zoning and site plan application in regard to 125 O'Connor Drive, 1119 Pape Ave. and 1121 Pape Ave.
Matched fields
- address
- 125 OCONNOR DR
- application_address
- 125 OCONNOR DR
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 12 December 2013 |
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 14
17 lobbied · 35 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 | 35 | 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.