lobbyTO

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

Development application 21 249603 STE 10 OZ

16 Oxley St; 101 Spadina Ave; 105 Spadina Ave; 363 Adelaide St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
17 December 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
16 Oxley St; 101 Spadina Ave; 105 Spadina Ave; 363 Adelaide St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
17 December 2021
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
375 units

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 the redevelopment of the site with a 39-storey plus mechanical penthouse mixed-use building with a total height of 133.95 metres. The total proposed gross floor area equals 27,253 square metres including 194 square metres of ground floor retail and 375 residential units above. A new City park measuring 1,000 square metres is proposed on the northern portion of the site with a public parking garage beneath. This file is being reviewed in conjunction with Site Plan Approval application, File No 21-249606 STE 10 SA.

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 · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • CreateTO1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
CreateTOLocal board1015 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 10

88 lobbied · 94 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=7
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied11%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

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 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied88—100% (n=7)0%11%0.03
Matched, unlobbied94—100% (n=6)0%5%0.01
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.