Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 15 195124 STE 14 SA

Ward 4 · Gord PerksDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 22 July 2015; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 35 Wabash Ave
Ward: Ward 4 · Gord Perks
Submitted: 22 July 2015
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 15 195121 STE 14 OZ

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

Description

—

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

Zinc Developments · registration SM23338
35 Wabash Avenue, City of Toronto
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 SM23338: 35 Wabash Avenue, City of Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 195124 STE 14 SA at 35 Wabash Ave: (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 35 Wabash Avenue, City of Toronto
Matched fields
address
35 WABASH AVE
application_address
35 WABASH AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park	Member of council	1	1	4 July 2016

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Stikeman Elliott LLP1 registration

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Farzin Group
SM11238 · 11 February 2008 · “35 Wabash Avenue”

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 4

17 lobbied · 33 matched

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

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 4: 17 lobbied and 33 matched unlobbied applications in 13 matched strata
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	33	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=63)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,236	—	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.