Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 16 172094 ESC 41 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 10 June 2016
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 25 Glen Watford Dr
- Ward
- Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
- Submitted
- 10 June 2016
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 16 172062 ESC 41 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
INACTIVE Proposed 10-storey retirement home containing 249 bed-sitting rooms with at-grade retail uses at a gross density of 3.7 times the lot area and a one-level underground parking garage with 117 parking spaces spaces located on a proposed 18.5m r-o-w
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
KBIJ Corporation · registration SM25634
Lack of progress with the pending application at 25 Glen Watford Drive.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
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 SM25634: Lack of progress with the pending application at 25 Glen Watford Drive. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 172094 ESC 41 SA at 25 Glen Watford Dr: INACTIVE Proposed 10-storey retirement home containing 249 bed-sitting rooms with at-grade retail uses at a gross density of 3.7 times the lot area and a one-level underground parking garage with 117 parking spaces spaces located on a proposed 18.5m r-o-w (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Lack of progress with the pending application at 25 Glen Watford Drive.
Matched fields
- address
- 25 GLEN WATFORD DR
- application_address
- 25 GLEN WATFORD DR
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
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 23
2 lobbied · 2 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 2 | 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.