Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 08 220984 WET 05 OZ
1030 Islington Ave; 1040 Islington Avenue
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 12 November 2008
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 1030 Islington Ave; 1040 Islington Avenue
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Submitted
- 12 November 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
- 250 units
- Related file
- 13 274561 WET 05 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Redevelopment of site to include approximately 250 townhouse units and a 5,252 sq. meter industrial building. Exisitng TD bank will remain.
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
Mantella Corp · registration SM14647
rezoning 1030 -1040 Islington Ave
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.71
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 SM14647: rezoning 1030 -1040 Islington Ave (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 220984 WET 05 OZ at 1040 Islington Ave: Redevelopment of site to include approximately 250 townhouse units and a 5,252 sq. meter industrial building. Exisitng TD bank will remain. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: rezoning 1030 -1040 Islington Ave
Matched fields
- address
- 1030-1040 ISLINGTON AVE
- application_address
- 1030 ISLINGTON AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 18 August 2011 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Graywood Developments Ltd.SM24303 · 29 March 2017 · “1040 Islington 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 3
37 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 37 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 16% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 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.