lobbyTO

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

Development application 14 112716 STE 19 OZ

37 Hanna Ave; 171 East Liberty St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
3 February 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
37 Hanna Ave; 171 East Liberty St
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
3 February 2014
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
12 246860 STE 19 OZ

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

Description

This application proposes to permit the redevelopment of the most easterly portion of the site with a 32-storey mixed-use building consisting of ground floor retail, office floorspace on the 2nd to 7th storeys, residential units on the 8th to 32nd storeys and three levels of underground parking. A two-storey portion of the existing building at the east part of the site is proposed to be demolished to facilitate the proposed development. See related Re-Zoning Application 12-24860-STE-19-OZ.

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 · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 19 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council1119 January 2017

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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=7
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied11%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

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 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied88—100% (n=7)0%11%0.03
Matched, unlobbied94—100% (n=6)0%5%0.01
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.