Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 13 143167 WET 06 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 2 April 2013
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 2 Station Rd
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Submitted
- 2 April 2013
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Proposed re-purposing of Wesley Mimico United Church to a multi-use facility incorporating a new worship space, community uses, and 30 seniors' apartments.
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
Wesley Mimico United Church · registration SM19684
proposed redevelopment of Wesley Mimico United Church, 2 Station Rd., Mimico
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM19684: proposed redevelopment of Wesley Mimico United Church, 2 Station Rd., Mimico (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 143167 WET 06 OZ at 2 Station Rd: Proposed re-purposing of Wesley Mimico United Church to a multi-use facility incorporating a new worship space, community uses, and 30 seniors' apartments. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: proposed redevelopment of Wesley Mimico United Church, 2 Station Rd., Mimico
Matched fields
- address
- 2 STATION RD
- application_address
- 2 STATION RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Wesley Mimico United ChurchSM19721 · 3 October 2013 · “2 Station Road”
- Wesley Mimico United ChurchSM19718 · 2 October 2013 · “2 Station Road”
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 37 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 19% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| 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.