lobbyTO

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

Development application 21 251194 NNY 08 OZ

774 Marlee Ave; 776 Marlee Ave; 778 Marlee Ave; 780 Marlee Ave; 782 Marlee Ave

Status
Appeal Received
In progress
Submitted
23 December 2021
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
4
4 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
774 Marlee Ave; 776 Marlee Ave; 778 Marlee Ave; 780 Marlee Ave; 782 Marlee Ave
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
23 December 2021
Status
Appeal Received
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
321 units; 20,373 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 application to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for a proposed 24 storey residential building with 60m2 non-residential retail use at grade and containing 321 dwelling units, with 162 vehicular and 289 bicycle parking spaces in a 2-level below grade garage. The proposal would have a residential gross floor area of 20,373 square metres.

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 · 4 communications · 4 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Councillor Mike Colle2
  • Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence2
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Councillor Mike ColleCouncillor staff229 May 2022
Ward 8 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council229 May 2022

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=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%

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 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied33—100% (n=2)0%12%0.00
Matched, unlobbied57—100% (n=3)0%27%0.03
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.