lobbyTO

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

Development application 11 196104 STE 27 OZ

131 Hazelton Avenue; 133 Hazelton Ave; 191 Davenport Rd; 195 Davenport Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
16 May 2011
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
5
3 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
131 Hazelton Avenue; 133 Hazelton Ave; 191 Davenport Rd; 195 Davenport Rd
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
16 May 2011
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
38 units

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

Description

OPA and Rezoning to permit the lands to be designated for mixed use upon which a redevelopment of the lands consisting of 9 storey mixed use building containing ground floor retail and 38 residential units above is proposed. Included in the proposal are 79 parking spaces located in a below grade parking facility, three for visitors.

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

1 linked registration · 5 communications · 3 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale5
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council5317 February 2012

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.

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 11

69 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=9
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied11%

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 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied69—100% (n=9)0%10%0.04
Matched, unlobbied60—100% (n=4)0%11%0.03
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.