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

Development application 14 128794 STE 19 OZ

1 Snooker St; 2 Liberty St; 22 Liberty St; 24 A Liberty St; 24 Liberty St; 38 Hanna Ave; 40 Hanna Ave; 99 Atlantic Ave

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 14 March 2014; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 8; 8 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 1 Snooker St; 2 Liberty St; 22 Liberty St; 24 A Liberty St; 24 Liberty St; 38 Hanna Ave; 40 Hanna Ave; 99 Atlantic Ave
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 14 March 2014
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 renovations and adaptive reuse of the existing buildings on the property for office uses with retail and services commercial use at the lower levels. Two new building are proposed within the existing surface parking lot areas, including a 8-storey office building with retail and service commercial uses at grade.

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

Kevric Real Estate · registration SM17699
ZBA, OPA apps for 99 Atlantic Avenue
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM17699: ZBA, OPA apps for 99 Atlantic Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 128794 STE 19 OZ at 1 Snooker St: Proposed renovations and adaptive reuse of the existing buildings on the property for office uses with retail and services commercial use at the lower levels. Two new building are proposed within the existing surface parking lot areas, including a 8-storey office building with retail and service co… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: ZBA, OPA apps for 99 Atlantic Avenue
Matched fields
address
99 ATLANTIC AVE
application_address
99 ATLANTIC AVE
Kevric Real Estate · registration SM17690
ZBA, OPA apps for 99 Atlantic Avenue
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM17690: ZBA, OPA apps for 99 Atlantic Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 128794 STE 19 OZ at 1 Snooker St: Proposed renovations and adaptive reuse of the existing buildings on the property for office uses with retail and services commercial use at the lower levels. Two new building are proposed within the existing surface parking lot areas, including a 8-storey office building with retail and service co… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: ZBA, OPA apps for 99 Atlantic Avenue
Matched fields
address
99 ATLANTIC AVE
application_address
99 ATLANTIC AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 8 communications · 8 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina4
Ward 38 Scarborough Centre3
Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park1

Data table· 3 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	4	4	11 June 2014
Ward 38 Scarborough Centre	Member of council	3	3	8 May 2013
Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park	Member of council	1	1	26 February 2014

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Bousfields Inc.1 registration

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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

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

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied10%
Matched, unlobbied5%

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 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	10%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	100% (n=7)	0%	5%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	571	—	100% (n=78)	0%	12%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	760	—	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.