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

Development application 11 325706 ESC 35 OZ

Ward 20 · Parthi KandavelDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 14 December 2011; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 14; 5 meetings · 8 offices

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 1891 Eglinton Ave E
Ward: Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted: 14 December 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: 1,640 units

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

Description

An application has been submitted to amend the Toronto Official Plan to permit a mixed use development by redesignating the lands at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East from Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas. A total of 1640 residential units are proposed in five buildings, three of which include mixed-use podium buildings, ranging from 30-40 storeys in height. A one-storey retail building is also proposed at the southwest portion of the site. The application includes 14,843 square metres of commercial/retail space and 6,213 square metres of office space

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

Myer Betel · registration SM15406
1891 Eglinton Avenue East
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 SM15406: 1891 Eglinton Avenue East (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 325706 ESC 35 OZ at 1891 Eglinton Ave E: An application has been submitted to amend the Toronto Official Plan to permit a mixed use development by redesignating the lands at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East from Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas. A total of 1640 residential units are proposed in five buildings, three of which include mixed-use… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1891 Eglinton Avenue East
Matched fields
address
1891 EGLINTON AVE E
application_address
1891 EGLINTON AVE E

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 14 communications · 5 meetings · 8 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest7
Ward 12 York South-Weston1
Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence1
Ward 18 Davenport1
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina1
Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest1
Ward 37 Scarborough Centre1
Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore1

Data table· 8 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest	Member of council	7	4	19 November 2013
Ward 12 York South-Weston	Member of council	1	0	17 April 2012
Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence	Member of council	1	0	17 April 2012
Ward 18 Davenport	Member of council	1	0	17 April 2012
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	1	0	17 April 2012
Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest	Member of council	1	0	17 April 2012
Ward 37 Scarborough Centre	Member of council	1	1	27 April 2011
Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore	Member of council	1	0	17 April 2012

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.

Mattamy Homes Limited
SM33049 · 11 March 2022 · “1891 Eglinton Avenue East”
Mattamy Homes Canada
SM32967 · 18 February 2022 · “1891 Eglinton Avenue East”
Myer Betel
SM19851 · 12 November 2013 · “1891 Eglinton Avenue East”

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 20

13 lobbied · 19 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 20: 13 lobbied and 19 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	13	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	19	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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.