lobbyTO

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

Development application 14 227468 STE 27 OZ

68 Charles St E; 70 Charles St E; 628 Church St; 634 Church St; 636 Church St; 638 Church St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
24 September 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
13
13 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
68 Charles St E; 70 Charles St E; 628 Church St; 634 Church St; 636 Church St; 638 Church St
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
24 September 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

Rezoning application for a mixed use development containing a 49 storey residential apartment building, with retail uses at grade along church street and low rise apartments along Charles Street East. The proposal includes 383 condominium apartments, 20 rental replacement apartment units, and 349 square metres if retail and service commercial uses.

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

3 linked registrations · 13 communications · 13 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale10
  • Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, Ward 273
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council10109 February 2016
Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, Ward 27Councillor staff3316 December 2014

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 11

69 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=10
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied11%

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 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied69—100% (n=10)0%10%0.04
Matched, unlobbied60—100% (n=4)0%11%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.