lobbyTO

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

Development application 11 326670 WET 06 OZ

24 The East Mall; 564 Evans Ave; 570 Evans Ave; 572 Evans Ave; 574 Evans Ave; 576 Evans Ave; 580 Evans Ave

Status
Council Approved
Approved
Submitted
15 December 2011
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
28
4 meetings · 7 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
24 The East Mall; 564 Evans Ave; 570 Evans Ave; 572 Evans Ave; 574 Evans Ave; 576 Evans Ave; 580 Evans Ave
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
15 December 2011
Status
Council Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
14 268446 WET 06 OZ

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

Description

proposed mixed use development

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

2 linked registrations · 28 communications · 4 meetings · 7 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 8 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Amber MorleyMember of council8130 April 2025
Amber MorleyCouncillor staff7030 April 2025
Housing SecretariatCity staff6226 March 2021
Stephen HolydayMember of council2021 February 2024
Vincent CrisantiMember of council2015 February 2024
Ward 5 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council1130 November 2012
Anthony PerruzzaMember of council1014 February 2024
Frances NunziataMember of council1014 February 2024

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 3

37 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied16%
  • Matched, unlobbied15%

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 3: 37 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 25 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied37—100% (n=4)0%16%0.27
Matched, unlobbied72—100% (n=6)0%15%0.04
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.