lobbyTO

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

Development application 20 226085 NNY 08 OZ

281 Hillmount Ave; 283 Hillmount Ave; 285 Hillmount Ave; 287 Hillmount Ave; 412 Marlee Ave; 414 Marlee Ave

Status
OMB Approved
Approved
Submitted
4 December 2020
Appealed
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
281 Hillmount Ave; 283 Hillmount Ave; 285 Hillmount Ave; 287 Hillmount Ave; 412 Marlee Ave; 414 Marlee Ave
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
4 December 2020
Status
OMB Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
190 units; 13,503 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications to permit a 10-storey residential building with a total of 190 dwelling units and ground floor commercial uses, for a total gross floor area of 13,503 sq metres (density of 4.86 times lot area). The development would have 2 levels of underground parking for 115 vehicular and 190 bicycle parking spaces. A 3.4 m road widening is required along the Marlee Avenue frontage. The development represents a lot assembly. Concurrent site plan application File# 21-205323 NNY 08 SA submitted August 27, 2021. Approved by OLT May 19, 2023.

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 8 Eglinton-Lawrence3
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 8 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council3329 April 2021

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 8

33 lobbied · 57 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied26%

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 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied33—100% (n=3)0%12%0.00
Matched, unlobbied57—100% (n=3)0%26%0.03
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.