lobbyTO

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

Development application 14 193159 WET 05 OZ

1 Neighbourhood Lane; 25 Neighbourhood Lane; 144 Berry Rd; 150 Berry Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
18 July 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
1 Neighbourhood Lane; 25 Neighbourhood Lane; 144 Berry Rd; 150 Berry Rd
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
18 July 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 amendments to former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code and City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 to permit a mixed use development. The development would include a portion of a new private road and publicly accessible open space, and a 2-storey commercial building containing a grocery store, multiple retail units and health centre, located at the southwest corner of the site fronting Berry Road. Three mid-rise residential buildings (one 7-storey, one 6 to 8-storeys, and one 10-storey building), the continuation of the new private road and publicly accessible open space.

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 · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore2
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 5 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council228 December 2015

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 3

37 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied15%

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 3: 37 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 25 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied37—100% (n=2)0%19%0.27
Matched, unlobbied72—100% (n=6)0%15%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.