Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 18 149402 STE 19 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 26 April 2018
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 12 Ossington Ave
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 26 April 2018
- 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
Site Plan Control application to permit the construction of a new 4-storey office/retail building (1653.0 sq. m.)
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
Hullmark Developments Limited · registration SM25712
12 Ossington Avenue Minor Variance to permit the construction of a new 4 storey non-residential building Site Plan to permit the construction of a new 4 storey non-residential building
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
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 SM25712: 12 Ossington Avenue Minor Variance to permit the construction of a new 4 storey non-residential building Site Plan to permit the construction of a new 4 storey non-residential building (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 149402 STE 19 SA at 12 Ossington Ave: Site Plan Control application to permit the construction of a new 4-storey office/retail building (1653.0 sq. m.) (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 12 Ossington Avenue Minor Variance to permit the construction of a new 4 storey non-residential building Site Plan to permit the constructi…
Matched fields
- address
- 12 OSSINGTON AVE
- application_address
- 12 OSSINGTON AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 12 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 10 | Councillor staff | 12 | 0 | 8 December 2020 |
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Hullmark Developments LimitedSM22225 · 15 September 2015 · “12 Ossington Avenue.”
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval 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 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 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.