lobbyTO

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

Development application 16 230579 ESC 35 OZ

1 Eglinton Sq; 14 Engelhart Cres; 18 Engelhart Cres; 19 Engelhart Cres; 22 Engelhart Cres; 23 Engelhart Cres; 26 Engelhart Cres; 64 Harris Park Dr; 68 Harris Park Dr; 70 Eglinton Sq; 1431 Victoria Park Ave; 1437 Victoria Park Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
29 September 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
0
0 meetings · 0 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
1 Eglinton Sq; 14 Engelhart Cres; 18 Engelhart Cres; 19 Engelhart Cres; 22 Engelhart Cres; 23 Engelhart Cres; 26 Engelhart Cres; 64 Harris Park Dr; 68 Harris Park Dr; 70 Eglinton Sq; 1431 Victoria Park Ave; 1437 Victoria Park Ave
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
29 September 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded

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

Description

Official Plan Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development on the lands at 1-70 Eglinton Square, 1431 and 1437 Victoria Park Avenue, and 14,18, 22, and 26 Engelhart Crescent. The development would consist of building heights that range from eight (8) to 46 storeys, public parkland and new public streets, including the O'Connor Drive Reconfiguration.

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 · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

No communications recorded.

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 20

13 lobbied · 19 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 20: 13 lobbied and 19 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied19Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.