lobbyTO

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

Development application 16 196378 STE 20 OZ

495 Richmond St W; 497 Richmond St W; 501 Richmond St W; 505 Richmond St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
25 July 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
9
4 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
495 Richmond St W; 497 Richmond St W; 501 Richmond St W; 505 Richmond St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
25 July 2016
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
15 units

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

Description

Proposal for Rezoning related to a 13 storey mixed use building with retail and a food hall at grade, a YMCA on the second and third storeys, and residential above. The project is to include 284 market-rate residential units and 15 affordable 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

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 9 communications · 4 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 205
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina3
  • Office of Councillor Cressy1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 20Councillor staff526 March 2017
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council326 March 2017
Office of Councillor CressyCouncillor staff106 March 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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=7
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

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 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied88—100% (n=7)0%10%0.03
Matched, unlobbied94—100% (n=7)0%5%0.01
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.