Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 18 212297 STE 22 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 20 August 2018
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 26 Birch Ave
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Submitted
- 20 August 2018
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 27 units
- Related file
- 18 212287 STE 22 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Control applicaiton to permit a 4-storey (13.4 metres) residential building containing 27 dwelling units. The proposed development provides 1 level of underground parking with 51 parking spaces for residents and 5 parking spaces for visitors.See related Zoning By-law Amendment application no. 18 212287 STE 22 OZ.
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
North Drive Investments Inc. · registration SM25589
Rezoning and Site Plan application for 26-40 Birch Avenue.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM25589: Rezoning and Site Plan application for 26-40 Birch Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 212297 STE 22 SA at 26 Birch Ave: Site Plan Control applicaiton to permit a 4-storey (13.4 metres) residential building containing 27 dwelling units. The proposed development provides 1 level of underground parking with 51 parking spaces for residents and 5 parking spaces for visitors.See related Zoning By-law Amendment application… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning and Site Plan application for 26-40 Birch Avenue.
Matched fields
- address
- 26-40 BIRCH AVE
- application_address
- 26 BIRCH AVE
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 12
32 lobbied · 72 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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | 511 | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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.