lobbyTO

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

Development application 14 102565 NNY 16 OZ

278 Strathallan Wood; 280 Strathallan Wood; 282 Strathallan Wood; 491 Glencairn Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
9 January 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
1 meeting · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
278 Strathallan Wood; 280 Strathallan Wood; 282 Strathallan Wood; 491 Glencairn Ave
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
9 January 2014
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
150 units; 12,609 m² gross floor area

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

Description

The proposal is for a 12 storey, (42 metres high) residential/mixed use building. The proposal includes 150 residential units and 478 square metres of grade-related commercial space having a total gross floor area of 12,609 square metres and an FSI of 4.3. One loading space is proposed, as well as 149 parking spaces in a below grade parking structure.

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 · 2 communications · 1 meeting · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Stintz, Ward 161
  • Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Stintz, Ward 16Councillor staff1010 February 2014
Ward 16 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council1116 September 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.

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.