lobbyTO

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

Development application 13 127993 NNY 16 OZ

25 Montgomery Ave; 31 Montgomery Ave; 2384 Yonge St; 2388 Yonge St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
4 March 2013
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
17
15 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
25 Montgomery Ave; 31 Montgomery Ave; 2384 Yonge St; 2388 Yonge St
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
4 March 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
234 units

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

Description

The application proposes an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 26-storey mixed use residential and commercial building with 234 dwelling units and 1,715 square metres of commercial/retail gross floor area. The proposal includes the retention of a portion of the post office building on the site.

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 · 17 communications · 15 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence14
  • Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence2
  • Ward 22 St. Paul's1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council141325 May 2018
Ward 8 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council227 February 2019
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council1012 November 2012

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 8

33 lobbied · 57 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied26%

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 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied33—100% (n=3)0%12%0.00
Matched, unlobbied57—100% (n=3)0%26%0.03
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.