lobbyTO

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

Development application 17 277456 ESC 38 OZ

670 Progress Ave; 680 Progress Ave; 690 Progress Ave

Status
OMB Appeal
In progress
Submitted
19 December 2017
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
29
5 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
670 Progress Ave; 680 Progress Ave; 690 Progress Ave
Ward
Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
Submitted
19 December 2017
Status
OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
3,203 units

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

Description

Fifth Submission: To permit the redevelopment of the lands with seven tall, residential buildings ranging in height from 18 to 54 storeys with a total of 3,203 residential units. The proposed buildings would be spread out over 5 development blocks. A public park and a daycare are also proposed.

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 · 29 communications · 5 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Councillor Paul Ainslie16
  • Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood11
  • Councillor Ainslie2
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Councillor Paul AinslieCouncillor staff16118 March 2022
Ward 24 Scarborough-GuildwoodMember of council11310 March 2022
Councillor AinslieCouncillor staff2113 December 2019

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 24

8 lobbied · 7 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 24: 8 lobbied and 7 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied8Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied7Hidden: 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.