lobbyTO

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

Development application 14 267424 STE 20 OZ

134 Portland St; 136 Portland St; 138 Portland St; 543 Richmond St W; 553 Richmond St W

Ward 3 · Amber MorleyDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
23 December 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
134 Portland St; 136 Portland St; 138 Portland St; 543 Richmond St W; 553 Richmond St W
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
23 December 2014
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
476 units

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

Description

Proposed zoning amendment to redevelop the site with a 15-storey mixed-use building. The building will have a height 49.66 metres including the mechanical penthouse and will contain 476 residential units, 213 undergraound parking spaces and retail 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

Lobbying on linked registrations

3 linked registrations · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina2
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council2215 October 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.