Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 15 236785 STE 27 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 13 October 2015
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 60 Shuter St; 187 Church St
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Submitted
- 13 October 2015
- 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
- 328 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 29-storey mixed-use building (86.25m including mechanical penthouse) with 576 sq. m of retail and 328 residential units.
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
Menkes Developments Ltd · registration SM24179
60 Shuter Street
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM24179: 60 Shuter Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 236785 STE 27 OZ at 60 Shuter St: Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 29-storey mixed-use building (86.25m including mechanical penthouse) with 576 sq. m of retail and 328 residential units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 60 Shuter Street
Matched fields
- address
- 60 SHUTER ST
- application_address
- 60 SHUTER ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 15 March 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.
None.
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 13
83 lobbied · 97 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 83 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 11% | 0.14 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 97 | 1,793 | 93% (n=14) | 7% | 17% | 0.08 |
| 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.