lobbyTO

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

Development application 20 124904 STE 04 OZ

1488 Queen St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
11 March 2020
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
5
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
8
2 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
1488 Queen St W
Ward
Ward 4 · Gord Perks
Submitted
11 March 2020
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
29 units; 2,550 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the development of the site for a 6-storey mixed-use building comprised of 190 m² of non-residential and 2,550 m² of residential gross floor area. A total of 29 residential dwelling units are proposed on the lot, as well as 4 at grade parking spaces.

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

5 linked registrations · 8 communications · 2 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Perks, Ward 44
  • Councillor Perks, Ward 42
  • Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park2
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Perks, Ward 4Councillor staff404 February 2020
Councillor Perks, Ward 4Councillor staff2019 February 2020
Ward 4 Parkdale-High ParkMember of council2221 May 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.

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 4

12 lobbied · 20 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 4: 12 lobbied and 20 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied12Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied20Hidden: 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.