Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 16 271272 WET 11 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 28 December 2016
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 87 Ethel Ave
- Ward
- Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
- Submitted
- 28 December 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 · City application page
Description
Proposed redevelopment of the site with a combination of mixed-use and residential buildings.
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
Ikore Developments · registration SM26974
I have been retained by iKore Developments Ltd to assist with rezoning and official plan amendment applications with respect to 87 Ethel Avenue
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM26974: I have been retained by iKore Developments Ltd to assist with rezoning and official plan amendment applications with respect to 87 Ethel Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 271272 WET 11 OZ at 87 Ethel Ave: Proposed redevelopment of the site with a combination of mixed-use and residential buildings. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …een retained by iKore Developments Ltd to assist with rezoning and official plan amendment applications with respect to 87 Ethel Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 87 ETHEL AVE
- application_address
- 87 ETHEL AVE
Red Eagle Enterprises Inc · registration SM24187
Client Red Eagle Enterprise Inc. has submitted a rezoning application to develop 87 Ethel Avenue. Red Eagle is also an appellant with regard to the OMB appeal of OPA 231
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM24187: Client Red Eagle Enterprise Inc. has submitted a rezoning application to develop 87 Ethel Avenue. Red Eagle is also an appellant with regard to the OMB appeal of OPA 231 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 271272 WET 11 OZ at 87 Ethel Ave: Proposed redevelopment of the site with a combination of mixed-use and residential buildings. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Client Red Eagle Enterprise Inc. has submitted a rezoning application to develop 87 Ethel Avenue. Red Eagle is also an appellant with regard to the OMB appeal of OPA 231
Matched fields
- address
- 87 ETHEL AVE
- application_address
- 87 ETHEL AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
2 linked registrations · 10 communications · 5 meetings · 8 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 8 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre | Member of council | 3 | 0 | 28 March 2018 |
| City Manager | City staff | 1 | 1 | 8 February 2019 |
| Councillor Ann Bailao | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 13 March 2020 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 11 April 2018 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 13 March 2020 |
| Ward 5 York South-Weston | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 8 February 2019 |
| Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 21 January 2019 |
| Ward 9 Davenport | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 18 January 2019 |
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.
- 87 Ethel avenue holdings IncSM36148 · 25 November 2024 · “87 Ethel Avenue”
- Ikore DevelopmentsSM30152 · 3 June 2020 · “87 Ethel Ave”
- Ikore DevelopmentsSM29674 · 23 January 2020 · “87 Ethel Avenue”
- 87 Ethel avenue holdings IncSM27134 · 5 December 2018 · “87 Ethel Avenue”
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 5
12 lobbied · 17 matchedHidden: 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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.