lobbyTO

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

Development application 21 233780 STE 11 OZ

25 Mc Murrich St; 906 Yonge St

Ward 11 · Dianne SaxeDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
OMB Approved
Approved
Submitted
3 November 2021
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
6
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
9
7 meetings · 4 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
25 Mc Murrich St; 906 Yonge St
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
3 November 2021
Status
OMB Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
401 units; 75 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 permit a mixed-use building with 33- and 19-storey tower elements, containing 401 dwelling units and 75 square metres of non-residential gross floor area. The proposal includes heritage conservation on the 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

6 linked registrations · 9 communications · 7 meetings · 4 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 11 University-Rosedale5
  • Office of Councillor Layton, Ward 112
  • Mike Layton1
  • Dianne Saxe1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 11 University-RosedaleMember of council5510 June 2022
Office of Councillor Layton, Ward 11Councillor staff2226 July 2021
Mike LaytonCouncillor staff1013 May 2022
Dianne SaxeMember of council1013 September 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 11

69 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=10
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied11%

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 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied69—100% (n=10)0%10%0.04
Matched, unlobbied60—100% (n=4)0%11%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.