lobbyTO

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

Development application 14 268423 STE 22 OZ

1417 Yonge St; 1421 Yonge St; 1427 Yonge St; 1429 Yonge St; 1431 Yonge St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
30 December 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
4
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
4
2 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
1417 Yonge St; 1421 Yonge St; 1427 Yonge St; 1429 Yonge St; 1431 Yonge St
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
30 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
420 units

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

Description

The proposal for a 42-storey mixed-use building with 420 residential units and commericial space on the 1st and 2nd floors and 4 levels of underground parking with 136 parking spaces was refused by City Council and appealed to the OMB. The applicant has revised their poposal at the OMB which includes an additional property at 1431 Yonge Street, increases the height to 46 storeys with the addition of 4 floors of office use. OMB Case No. PL151188.

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

4 linked registrations · 4 communications · 2 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council3229 June 2016
Josh MatlowMember of council1021 July 2025

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 12

44 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=9
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=9

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied14%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

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 12: 44 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied44—100% (n=9)0%14%0.02
Matched, unlobbied60—100% (n=9)0%10%0.04
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.