Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 16 189275 STE 20 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 12 July 2016
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 86 John St
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 12 July 2016
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 14 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
INACTIVE Site Plan Application for a 10-storey mixed-use building with a restaurant at grade and 14 residential units above. The development does not include any vehicular parking, but includes 2 short-term and 13 long-term bicycle parking spaces. Associated variances were approved by the Committee of Adjustment (File No. A0715/18TEY).
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
Tawse Realco Inc. · registration SM24042
Site plan approval on 8 story building, 86 John Street
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM24042: Site plan approval on 8 story building, 86 John Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 189275 STE 20 SA at 86 John St: INACTIVE Site Plan Application for a 10-storey mixed-use building with a restaurant at grade and 14 residential units above. The development does not include any vehicular parking, but includes 2 short-term and 13 long-term bicycle parking spaces. Associated variances were approved by the Committee… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site plan approval on 8 story building, 86 John Street
Matched fields
- address
- 86 JOHN ST
- application_address
- 86 JOHN ST
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.