lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 14 235284 STE 20 SA

8 Widmer St; 10 Widmer St; 12 Widmer St; 14 Widmer St; 16 Widmer St; 18 Widmer St; 20 Widmer St; 30 Widmer St; 309 Adelaide St W; 310 Adelaide St W; 312 Adelaide St W; 313 Adelaide St W; 315 Adelaide St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
9 October 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
8 Widmer St; 10 Widmer St; 12 Widmer St; 14 Widmer St; 16 Widmer St; 18 Widmer St; 20 Widmer St; 30 Widmer St; 309 Adelaide St W; 310 Adelaide St W; 312 Adelaide St W; 313 Adelaide St W; 315 Adelaide St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
9 October 2014
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
461 units
Related file
14 235297 STE 20 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 51 storey mixed use condo building and a eight storey podium with retail uses on the ground floor and second floor. A total of 461 residential units are proposed and 198 and below grade parking spaces are proposed.

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 · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Constituency Assistant to Cllr Cressy, Ward 201
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Constituency Assistant to Cllr Cressy, Ward 20Councillor staff119 January 2015
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council119 January 2015

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.

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.