lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 08 111649 NNY 26 OZ

2 Sonic Way; 23 Sonic Way; 1185 Eglinton Ave E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
14 February 2008
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
4
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
2 Sonic Way; 23 Sonic Way; 1185 Eglinton Ave E
Ward
Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
Submitted
14 February 2008
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
639 units

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

Description

This application is to permit the development of two apartment buildings 28 and 30 storeys in height and 26 townhouses for a total of 639 units and an FSI of 4.35 on the site of an existing office building and surface parking lot. The office building has been demolished. The applicant appealed to the OMB in May 2013 and a hearing is scheduled for November 3, 2013. North York Community Council considered a Directions Report at its meeting of September 10, 2013 and recommended approval subject to conditions.

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

2 linked registrations · 4 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 26 Don Valley West4
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 26 Don Valley WestMember of council413 October 2013

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.

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 16

4 lobbied · 8 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 16: 4 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied8Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—96% (n=78)4%14%0.05

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.