lobbyTO

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

Development application 21 208078 STE 10 OZ

147 Spadina Ave

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
OMB Appeal
In progress
Submitted
3 September 2021
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
5
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
29
6 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
147 Spadina Ave
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
3 September 2021
Status
OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
226 units; 351 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Revised Zoning Amendment application to redevelop the site with a 24-storey mixed-use building with a height of 76.8 meters (82.8 metres including the mechanical penthouse). A non-residential gross floor area of 351 square metres is proposed along with 226 residential units.

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 · 29 communications · 6 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ausma MalikCouncillor staff14417 October 2023
Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 10Councillor staff8222 March 2022
Ward 11 University-RosedaleMember of council3020 October 2022
Ausma MalikMember of council2011 January 2023
Dianne SaxeCouncillor staff108 June 2023
Mike ColleCouncillor staff105 October 2023

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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=7
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

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 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied88—100% (n=7)0%10%0.03
Matched, unlobbied94—100% (n=7)0%5%0.01
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.