Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 10 310798 STE 22 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 8 December 2010
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 68 Merton St
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Submitted
- 8 December 2010
- 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
- 149 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Rezoning application to construct new 13 storey condo - 149 dwelling units, 3 levels below grade parking 154 parking spaces.
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
Greyrock Group of Companies · registration SM15605
Application for zoning bylaw amendment regarding 68 Merton Street
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 SM15605: Application for zoning bylaw amendment regarding 68 Merton Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 310798 STE 22 OZ at 68 Merton St: Rezoning application to construct new 13 storey condo - 149 dwelling units, 3 levels below grade parking 154 parking spaces. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Application for zoning bylaw amendment regarding 68 Merton Street
Matched fields
- address
- 68 MERTON ST
- application_address
- 68 MERTON ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 3 communications · 3 meetings · 2 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 22 | Councillor staff | 2 | 2 | 22 December 2010 |
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 22 December 2010 |
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.
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 12
44 lobbied · 60 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 44 | 1,925 | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 14% | 0.02 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | 1,799 | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| 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.