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

Development application 09 154905 STE 20 OZ

117 Peter St; 125 Peter St; 287 Richmond St West

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 7 August 2009; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 16; 5 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 117 Peter St; 125 Peter St; 287 Richmond St West
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 7 August 2009
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

The revised application proposes a 36-storey mixed use building containing retail and office use in 4-storey podium and a 32-storey residential tower, 223 parking spaces are proposed underground.

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

Richmond-Peter Inc · registration SM14772
Proposal for mixed use building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM14772: Proposal for mixed use building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 154905 STE 20 OZ at 117 Peter St: The revised application proposes a 36-storey mixed use building containing retail and office use in 4-storey podium and a 32-storey residential tower, 223 parking spaces are proposed underground. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposal for mixed use building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West
Matched fields
address
117 PETER ST
application_address
117 PETER ST
Richmond-Peter Inc · registration SM13472
Proposal for mixed used building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM13472: Proposal for mixed used building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 154905 STE 20 OZ at 117 Peter St: The revised application proposes a 36-storey mixed use building containing retail and office use in 4-storey podium and a 32-storey residential tower, 223 parking spaces are proposed underground. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposal for mixed used building located at 117 Peter Street and 287 Richmond Street West.
Matched fields
address
117 PETER ST
application_address
117 PETER ST

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 16 communications · 5 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Adam Vaughan8
Office of Council Vaughan, Ward 206
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina2

Data table· 3 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Adam Vaughan	Councillor staff	8	2	24 October 2011
Office of Council Vaughan, Ward 20	Councillor staff	6	2	13 September 2010
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	2	1	3 November 2010

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

McCarthy Tetrault LLP2 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.

2504121 Ontario Inc.
SM23449 · 15 August 2016 · “117 Peter Street”
Malibu Investments Inc.
SM14228 · 20 April 2010 · “117 Peter St”
Malibu Investments Inc.
SM14228 · 20 April 2010 · “287 Richmond St West”

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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=7
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied11%
Matched, unlobbied5%

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

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	11%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	100% (n=6)	0%	5%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	573	1,925	100% (n=64)	0%	13%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	763	1,793	98% (n=70)	2%	13%	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.