lobbyTO

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

Development application 16 161250 STE 28 OZ

301 Queen St E; 305 Queen St E; 311 Queen St E; 315 Queen St E; 317 Queen St E

Status
OMB Approved
Approved
Submitted
25 May 2016
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
11
5 meetings · 4 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
301 Queen St E; 305 Queen St E; 311 Queen St E; 315 Queen St E; 317 Queen St E
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
25 May 2016
Status
OMB Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
150 units; 1,066 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Proposal for a new 19-storey mixed-use building next to the existing Berkeley Church, containing 150 dwelling units and 1,066 square metres of non-residential gross floor area.

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

2 linked registrations · 11 communications · 5 meetings · 4 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 284
  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale4
  • Office of Councillor Troisi, Ward 282
  • Ward 28 Councillor1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 28Councillor staff4029 November 2017
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council4311 January 2018
Office of Councillor Troisi, Ward 28Councillor staff2215 December 2017
Ward 28 CouncillorCouncillor staff1021 November 2017

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 13

82 lobbied · 96 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=13
  • Matched, unlobbied90% n=14

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied11%
  • Matched, unlobbied16%

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 13: 82 lobbied and 96 matched unlobbied applications in 34 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied82—100% (n=13)0%11%0.15
Matched, unlobbied96—90% (n=14)10%16%0.08
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.