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

Development application 18 264755 STE 10 OZ

61 Hanna Ave; 75 Hanna Ave; 85 Hanna Ave

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

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 5 December 2018; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 61 Hanna Ave; 75 Hanna Ave; 85 Hanna Ave
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 5 December 2018
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

Zoning By-law Amendement application to permanently amend a single use qualification from the underlying zoning that currently restricts the number and size of restaurants from operating within a building located in certain areas of Liberty Village. No new building permissions or physical alternations to the exterior envelope of the existing buildings are proposed.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

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

First capital Realty
SM30867 · 17 November 2020 · “61 Hanna Avenue”
First capital Realty
SM30867 · 17 November 2020 · “75 Hanna Avenue”
First Capital REIT
SM29707 · 4 February 2020 · “85 Hanna Avenue”
First capital Realty
SM27571 · 5 February 2019 · “85 Hanna 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 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.