lobbyTO

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

Development application 21 228762 WET 05 OZ

955 Weston Rd; 965-969 Weston Rd; 971 Weston Rd; 975 Weston Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
21 October 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
14
7 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
955 Weston Rd; 965-969 Weston Rd; 971 Weston Rd; 975 Weston Rd
Ward
Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
Submitted
21 October 2021
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded

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

Description

The two 34- and 24-storey towers with a 8-storey, mid-rise base building wrapping around the Weston Road frontage, along with a new approximately 1,470 square metre public park located at the Northwest corner of the subject site

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 · 14 communications · 7 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Frances NunziataCouncillor staff6129 April 2024
Frances NunziataMember of council4224 May 2024
Ward 5 York South-WestonMember of council3329 June 2022
Office of Councillor Nunziata, Ward 5Councillor staff1110 June 2022

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 5

12 lobbied · 17 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 5: 12 lobbied and 17 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, unlobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.