lobbyTO

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

Development application 19 232985 WET 03 OZ

315 Royal York Rd; 327 Royal York Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
7 October 2019
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
0
0 meetings · 0 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
315 Royal York Rd; 327 Royal York Rd
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
7 October 2019
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
727 units

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

Description

An application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a transit-oriented development (TOD) integrated with the Mimico GO Station for 315 Royal York Road (Metrolinx lands) and 327 Royal York Road (Vandyk lands). The proposal includes two residential towers with heights of 34 and 35-storeys on a 4 to 8-storey podium, a transit facility, and office and retail uses. The application includes a proposed total gross floor area (GFA) of 54 197 m2 (of which 47 431m2 would be for residential use, 6 766 m2. This development would contain a total of 727 residential units and a total of 345 vehicular parking spaces within a 3-level below grade parking garage.

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 · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

No communications recorded.

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 3

37 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied16%
  • Matched, unlobbied15%

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 3: 37 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 25 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied37—100% (n=4)0%16%0.27
Matched, unlobbied72—100% (n=6)0%15%0.04
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.