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

Development application 08 231922 NNY 16 OZ

600 Roselawn Ave; 602 Roselawn Avenue

Ward 8 · Mike ColleDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 24 December 2008; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 600 Roselawn Ave; 602 Roselawn Avenue
Ward: Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted: 24 December 2008
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

Description

6 unit - Three storey townhouses

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

Joe Goldman · registration SM14944
602 Roselawn Avenue
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 SM14944: 602 Roselawn Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 231922 NNY 16 OZ at 600 Roselawn Ave: 6 unit - Three storey townhouses (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 602 Roselawn Avenue
Matched fields
address
602 ROSELAWN AVE
application_address
602 ROSELAWN AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence	Member of council	1	1	19 August 2010

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Sherman Brown Dryer Karol1 registration

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 8

33 lobbied · 57 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied12%
Matched, unlobbied26%

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 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	33	—	100% (n=3)	0%	12%	0.00
Matched, unlobbied	57	—	100% (n=3)	0%	26%	0.03

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.