Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 5 June 2014
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 26 Ernest Ave
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 5 June 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
To rezone the subject property to allow for the constructing of a three-storey 79 unit townhouse development containing 100 parking spaces of which 92 parking spaces are for residents and 8 parking spaces are for visitors.
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
Montevallo Developments Limited · registration SM20142
the redevelopment of 26 Ernest Avenue
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM20142: the redevelopment of 26 Ernest Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZ at 26 Ernest Ave: To rezone the subject property to allow for the constructing of a three-storey 79 unit townhouse development containing 100 parking spaces of which 92 parking spaces are for residents and 8 parking spaces are for visitors. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: the redevelopment of 26 Ernest Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
Montevallo Development Corporation · registration SM20143
Re-development of 26 Ernest Avenue. Condominium registration.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
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 SM20143: Re-development of 26 Ernest Avenue. Condominium registration. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZ at 26 Ernest Ave: To rezone the subject property to allow for the constructing of a three-storey 79 unit townhouse development containing 100 parking spaces of which 92 parking spaces are for residents and 8 parking spaces are for visitors. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-development of 26 Ernest Avenue. Condominium registration.
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
Montevallo Developments Limited · registration SM19636
Re-zoning for 26 Ernest Ave.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM19636: Re-zoning for 26 Ernest Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 169077 STE 18 OZ at 26 Ernest Ave: To rezone the subject property to allow for the constructing of a three-storey 79 unit townhouse development containing 100 parking spaces of which 92 parking spaces are for residents and 8 parking spaces are for visitors. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-zoning for 26 Ernest Ave.
Matched fields
- address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
- application_address
- 26 ERNEST AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
3 linked registrations · 19 communications · 18 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 19 | 18 | 17 October 2017 |
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.
- Neudorfer Development CorporationSM25266 · 6 November 2017 · “26 Ernest Ave”
- Neudorfer Development CorporationSM25174 · 17 October 2017 · “26 Ernest Ave”
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 9
19 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.