lobbyTO

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

Development application 13 211324 STE 22 OZ

25 Holly St; 33 Holly St; 44 Dunfield Ave; 50 Dunfield Ave; 86 Soudan Ave; 88 Soudan Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
26 July 2013
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
3 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
25 Holly St; 33 Holly St; 44 Dunfield Ave; 50 Dunfield Ave; 86 Soudan Ave; 88 Soudan Ave
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
26 July 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 · City application page

Description

Application to permit new 27 and 34 storey residential towers, on a site with two existing 14 storey rental buildings. The total residential gross floor area of all buildings on the site (both new and existing) will be 67,900 square metres. A total 413 vehicular parking spaces and 547 bicycle parking spaces will be provided.

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

3 linked registrations · 3 communications · 3 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 22 St. Paul's2
  • Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 221
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council2230 April 2013
Office of Councillor Matlow, Ward 22Councillor staff1130 April 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 12

44 lobbied · 60 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,799

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=9
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=9

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied14%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 12: 44 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied441,925100% (n=9)0%14%0.02
Matched, unlobbied601,799100% (n=9)0%10%0.04
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.