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

Development application 17 159868 STE 20 OZ

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Council Approved; Approved
Submitted: 15 May 2017; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 14 Duncan St
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 15 May 2017
Status: Council Approved
Outcome recorded: Approved
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 369 units

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

Description

Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 48-storey mixed use building containing a 5-storey podium and 4 levels of underground parking. Proposed development contains 369 residential dwelling units, 564 sq.m of ground floor retail space and 6,041m2 of office floor space. The parking levels contain 126 vehicle parking spaces accessed by 2 car elevators, with 344 long-term bicycle parking spaces primarily located at-grade and on P1 level. [Revised March 3, 2020]

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

Estate of Arthur Caplan · registration SM25079
Review status of rezoning application for 14 Duncan Street.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.97
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 SM25079: Review status of rezoning application for 14 Duncan Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 159868 STE 20 OZ at 14 Duncan St: Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 48-storey mixed use building containing a 5-storey podium and 4 levels of underground parking. Proposed development contains 369 residential dwelling units, 564 sq.m of ground floor retail space and 6,041m2 of office floor space. The parking levels contain 126 ve… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Review status of rezoning application for 14 Duncan Street.
Matched fields
address
14 DUNCAN ST
application_address
14 DUNCAN ST
Estate of Arthur Caplan · registration SM24916
Rezoning Application for 14 Duncan Street, a 49 storey mixed use building permitted under OPA 297
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM24916: Rezoning Application for 14 Duncan Street, a 49 storey mixed use building permitted under OPA 297 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 159868 STE 20 OZ at 14 Duncan St: Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 48-storey mixed use building containing a 5-storey podium and 4 levels of underground parking. Proposed development contains 369 residential dwelling units, 564 sq.m of ground floor retail space and 6,041m2 of office floor space. The parking levels contain 126 ve… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning Application for 14 Duncan Street, a 49 storey mixed use building permitted under OPA 297
Matched fields
address
14 DUNCAN ST
application_address
14 DUNCAN ST

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina	Member of council	1	1	6 October 2017

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Devry Smith Frank LLP1 registration
Quadrangle Architects Limited1 registration

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

None.

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
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	10%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	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
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.