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

Development application 16 198806 STE 21 OZ

861 Eglinton Ave W; 875 Eglinton Ave W; 2020 Eglinton Ave W; 2024 Eglinton Ave W

Ward 12 · Josh MatlowDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 29 July 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 16; 3 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 861 Eglinton Ave W; 875 Eglinton Ave W; 2020 Eglinton Ave W; 2024 Eglinton Ave W
Ward: Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted: 29 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: 390 units

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

Description

Proposal for a 17-storey mixed use building with a terraced portion at the 8th storey on the east side. The building will contain 390 residential units with retail on the ground floor and a proposed FSI of 7.36.

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

CentreCourt · registration SM25263
Assisting with the development of 875 Eglinton Avenue West.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM25263: Assisting with the development of 875 Eglinton Avenue West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 198806 STE 21 OZ at 875 Eglinton Ave W: Proposal for a 17-storey mixed use building with a terraced portion at the 8th storey on the east side. The building will contain 390 residential units with retail on the ground floor and a proposed FSI of 7.36. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Assisting with the development of 875 Eglinton Avenue West.
Matched fields
address
875 EGLINTON AVE W
application_address
875 EGLINTON AVE W
CentreCourt · registration SM25031
Assisting with the development of 875 Eglinton Avenue West.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM25031: Assisting with the development of 875 Eglinton Avenue West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 198806 STE 21 OZ at 875 Eglinton Ave W: Proposal for a 17-storey mixed use building with a terraced portion at the 8th storey on the east side. The building will contain 390 residential units with retail on the ground floor and a proposed FSI of 7.36. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Assisting with the development of 875 Eglinton Avenue West.
Matched fields
address
875 EGLINTON AVE W
application_address
875 EGLINTON AVE W

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 16 communications · 3 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Councillor Mihevc8
Ward 21 St. Paul's5
Office of the Mayor3

Data table· 3 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Councillor Mihevc	Councillor staff	8	2	23 February 2018
Ward 21 St. Paul's	Member of council	5	1	14 March 2018
Office of the Mayor	Councillor staff	3	0	2 March 2018

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Amir Remtulla and Associates2 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.

Deaj Properties
SM18258 · 10 July 2012 · “875 Eglinton Avenue West”
Upper Village Investments Limited
SM16144 · 11 April 2011 · “875 Eglinton Avenue West”

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
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	44	—	100% (n=9)	0%	14%	0.02
Matched, unlobbied	60	—	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
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	571	—	100% (n=78)	0%	12%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	760	—	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.