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

Development application 18 105853 WET 11 OZ

Ward 5 · Frances NunziataDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 16 January 2018; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 2; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 9; 6 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 150 Symes Rd
Ward: Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
Submitted: 16 January 2018
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 13 201931 WET 11 OZ

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

Description

Application submitted to lift the Holding Symbol "H" as to permit an outdoor rooftop patio of 250 square metres on the site.

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

2515306 Ontario Inc. · registration SM26346
Application to lift a holding provision to allow an outdoor patio at 150 Symes Road, Toronto.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
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 SM26346: Application to lift a holding provision to allow an outdoor patio at 150 Symes Road, Toronto. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 105853 WET 11 OZ at 150 Symes Rd: Application submitted to lift the Holding Symbol "H" as to permit an outdoor rooftop patio of 250 square metres on the site. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Application to lift a holding provision to allow an outdoor patio at 150 Symes Road, Toronto.
Matched fields
address
150 SYMES RD
application_address
150 SYMES RD
2515306 Ontario Inc. · registration SM26313
Application to lift a holding provision to allow outdoor patios at 150 Symes Road
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
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 SM26313: Application to lift a holding provision to allow outdoor patios at 150 Symes Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 105853 WET 11 OZ at 150 Symes Rd: Application submitted to lift the Holding Symbol "H" as to permit an outdoor rooftop patio of 250 square metres on the site. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Application to lift a holding provision to allow outdoor patios at 150 Symes Road
Matched fields
address
150 SYMES RD
application_address
150 SYMES RD

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 9 communications · 6 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Frances Nunziata4
Ward 11 York South-Weston2
Mayor Tory1
Mayor's Office1
Office of Councillor Nunziata, Ward 111

Data table· 5 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Frances Nunziata	Councillor staff	4	1	19 July 2018
Ward 11 York South-Weston	Member of council	2	2	12 June 2018
Mayor Tory	Councillor staff	1	1	12 June 2018
Mayor's Office	Councillor staff	1	1	12 June 2018
Office of Councillor Nunziata, Ward 11	Councillor staff	1	1	12 June 2018

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Goodmans LLP1 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.

Symesbridge Inc.
SM23733 · 14 November 2016 · “150 Symes Road”
Symesbridge Inc.
SM19926 · 12 December 2013 · “150 Symes Rd”
Ehrlich Asset Management Inc.
SM18990 · 27 February 2013 · “150 Symes Rd.”

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 matched

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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 5: 12 lobbied and 17 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.