Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 17 226254 STE 20 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 31 August 2017
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 64 Prince Arthur Ave
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 31 August 2017
- 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
- 178 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for a 19-storey residential building (height 73 metres): 178 dwelling units, 13,052 sq. m. RGFA, 149 parking spaces.
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
Adi Development Group Inc. · registration SM25510
The property is located at 64 Prince Arthur Avenue.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM25510: The property is located at 64 Prince Arthur Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 226254 STE 20 OZ at 64 Prince Arthur Ave: Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for a 19-storey residential building (height 73 metres): 178 dwelling units, 13,052 sq. m. RGFA, 149 parking spaces. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: The property is located at 64 Prince Arthur Avenue.
Matched fields
- address
- 64 PRINCE ARTHUR AVE
- application_address
- 64 PRINCE ARTHUR AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Forgestone CapitalSM34482 · 9 May 2023 · “64 Prince Arthur Ave”
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 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.