lobbyTO

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

Development application 19 147759 NNY 17 OZ

2 Lansing Sq; 4-6 Lansing Sq; 2550 Victoria Park Ave

Status
Council Approved
Approved
Submitted
1 May 2019
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
3 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
2 Lansing Sq; 4-6 Lansing Sq; 2550 Victoria Park Ave
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
1 May 2019
Status
Council Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
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 Amendment application for a new master planned community with four new development blocks, new streets and new public park. Three blocks are in the lands designated Mixed Use Areas and one block is desginated as General Employment Areas. The existing office buildings at 2 Lansing Square and 2550 Victoria Park Avenue, located within the Mixed Use Designation will be retained. The lands in the Employment Areas designation includes a new 18-storey office tower connected to an above grade parking garage and a new 4,897 square metre public park.Total amount of residential units: 1,591.

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 · 3 communications · 3 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt3
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 22 Scarborough-AgincourtMember of council3328 June 2019

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 17

13 lobbied · 16 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 17: 13 lobbied and 16 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied16Hidden: 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.