lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 17 243666 STE 19 SA

1 Snooker St; 2 Liberty St; 22 Liberty St; 24 A Liberty St; 24 Liberty St; 38 Hanna Ave; 40 Hanna Ave; 99 Atlantic Ave

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
5 October 2017
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1 Snooker St; 2 Liberty St; 22 Liberty St; 24 A Liberty St; 24 Liberty St; 38 Hanna Ave; 40 Hanna Ave; 99 Atlantic Ave
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
5 October 2017
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
14 128794 STE 19 OZ

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

Description

Proposal to amend Site Plan Approval (OMB approved) 14 130831 STE 19 SA. The revisions include changes to building and parking entrances, additional vehicular and bicycle parking spaces, loading arrangements, air-intake shaft locations, garbage compactors, additional upper-ground floor space and landscaping.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

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

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,881

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 · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

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, unlobbied1651,881100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.