lobbyTO

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

Development application 12 276890 STE 20 OZ

260 King St W; 266-270 King St W; 268 King St W; 270 King St W; 274 King St W; 276 King St W; 284 King St W; 284A King St W; 300 King St W; 322 King St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
9 November 2012
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
11
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
133
85 meetings · 18 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
260 King St W; 266-270 King St W; 268 King St W; 270 King St W; 274 King St W; 276 King St W; 284 King St W; 284A King St W; 300 King St W; 322 King St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
9 November 2012
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
2,034 units

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

Description

Rezoning application to permit the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 266 -322 King Street west for the purposes of a new mixed use development on two parcels. The East Parcel would be developed with an 85 storey mixed use building. The West Parcel would be developed with a 95 storey mixed use building. A total of 2,034 dwelling units are proposed.

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

11 linked registrations · 133 communications · 85 meetings · 18 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina65
  • Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore10
  • Adam Vaughan9
  • Office of Councillor Adam Vaughan, Ward 209
  • Adam Vaughan Ward 207
  • Ward 37 Scarborough Centre7
  • Ward 18 Davenport4
  • Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt4
Data table· 18 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council654211 February 2016
Ward 5 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council1058 May 2014
Adam VaughanCouncillor staff9630 September 2013
Office of Councillor Adam Vaughan, Ward 20Councillor staff978 May 2014
Adam Vaughan Ward 20Councillor staff7730 September 2013
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council747 July 2014
Ward 18 DavenportMember of council427 July 2014
Ward 40 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council4310 December 2013
Office of Councillor Joe Cressy, Ward 20Councillor staff3010 May 2017
Office of Councillor Vaughan, Ward 20Councillor staff339 April 2014
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council3211 December 2013
Office of Councillor Michael Thompson, Ward 37Councillor staff217 July 2014
Ward 34 Don Valley EastMember of council2112 December 2013
Councillor Karen Stintz, Ward 16Councillor staff1111 December 2013
Office of Councillor Ana Bailao, Warde 18Councillor staff107 July 2014
Office of Councillor Norm Kelly, Ward 40Councillor staff1110 December 2013
Ward 14 Parkdale-High ParkMember of council1023 October 2013
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council1023 October 2013

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.

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=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

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 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied88—100% (n=7)0%10%0.03
Matched, unlobbied94—100% (n=7)0%5%0.01
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.