lobbyTO

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

Development application 20 151103 WET 03 OZ

4 Montgomery Rd; 6 Montgomery Rd; 8 Montgomery Rd; 3100 Bloor St W; 3200 Bloor St W

Status
OMB Approved
Approved
Submitted
1 June 2020
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
16
3 meetings · 6 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
4 Montgomery Rd; 6 Montgomery Rd; 8 Montgomery Rd; 3100 Bloor St W; 3200 Bloor St W
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
1 June 2020
Status
OMB Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes

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

Description

The proposed development consists of a 16-storey mixed-use building comprised of residential and commercial uses at grade, and residential uses above.

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

2 linked registrations · 16 communications · 3 meetings · 6 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore8
  • Mark Grimes2
  • Kingsway BIA2
  • Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre2
  • Councillor Mark Grimes1
  • Mayor1
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 3 Etobicoke-LakeshoreMember of council8017 December 2020
Mark GrimesCouncillor staff2027 March 2020
Kingsway BIALocal board208 March 2021
Ward 2 Etobicoke CentreMember of council228 March 2022
Councillor Mark GrimesCouncillor staff1119 February 2020
MayorMember of council1013 October 2020

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 3

37 lobbied · 72 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied15%

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 3: 37 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 25 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied37—100% (n=2)0%19%0.27
Matched, unlobbied72—100% (n=6)0%15%0.04
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.