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

Development application 13 123864 STE 27 OZ

Ward 11 · Dianne SaxeDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 22 February 2013; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 2; 2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 481 University Ave
Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted: 22 February 2013
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: 748 units

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

Description

Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the lands for the purposes of a new mixed use building, 55 stories in height complete with 50,439m2 (748 units) of residential space, 3,055m2 of retail space and 22,488m2 of office space. This proposal includes a total of 378 parking spaces all of which are below grade.

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

B+H Architects · registration SM18567
481 University Avenue
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM18567: 481 University Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 123864 STE 27 OZ at 481 University Ave: Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the lands for the purposes of a new mixed use building, 55 stories in height complete with 50,439m2 (748 units) of residential space, 3,055m2 of retail space and 22,488m2 of office space. This proposal includes a total of 378 parking spaces all o… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 481 University Avenue
Matched fields
address
481 UNIVERSITY AVE
application_address
481 UNIVERSITY AVE
B+H Architects · registration SM17890
Working as a consultant for the architect for 481 University Avenue
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
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 SM17890: Working as a consultant for the architect for 481 University Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 123864 STE 27 OZ at 481 University Ave: Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the lands for the purposes of a new mixed use building, 55 stories in height complete with 50,439m2 (748 units) of residential space, 3,055m2 of retail space and 22,488m2 of office space. This proposal includes a total of 378 parking spaces all o… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Working as a consultant for the architect for 481 University Avenue
Matched fields
address
481 UNIVERSITY AVE
application_address
481 UNIVERSITY AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale2

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale	Member of council	2	2	18 October 2012

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Urban Strategies Inc.2 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.

Davpart Inc.
SM33413 · 28 June 2022 · “481 University Avenue”
Davpart Inc.
SM33151 · 11 April 2022 · “481 University Ave.”
B+H Architects
SM18566 · 18 October 2012 · “481 University Ave.”
B+H Architects
SM17891 · 12 March 2012 · “481 University Ave”

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=10
Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied10%
Matched, unlobbied11%

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 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	69	—	100% (n=10)	0%	10%	0.04
Matched, unlobbied	60	—	100% (n=4)	0%	11%	0.03

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	571	—	100% (n=78)	0%	12%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	760	—	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.