lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 196569 NNY 24 SA

3125 Steeles Ave E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
25 July 2016
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
3125 Steeles Ave E
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
25 July 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded

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

Description

FULL SITE PLAN APPROVAL/NOAC ISSUANCE FOR BUILDINGS B AND C ONLY. Approval of a Master Site Plan as it pertains to buildings placement and site organization, and Site Plan Approval for Buildings B and C. Buildings A, D, E, F, and G require individual Site Plan Approval prior to building permit issuance. Orignial NOAC issued Oct 2, 2018. Reised issued Apr 23, 2019.

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 · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 39 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council1117 November 2017

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.

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 17

14 lobbied · 20 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 17: 14 lobbied and 20 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied14Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied20Hidden: 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
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.