lobbyTO

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

Development application 22 192793 NNY 08 OZ

589 Lawrence Ave W; 591 Lawrence Ave W; 593 Lawrence Ave W; 595 Lawrence Ave W; 597 Lawrence Ave W; 599 Lawrence Ave W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
18 August 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
589 Lawrence Ave W; 591 Lawrence Ave W; 593 Lawrence Ave W; 595 Lawrence Ave W; 597 Lawrence Ave W; 599 Lawrence Ave W
Ward
Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Submitted
18 August 2022
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
16 units; 2,431 m² gross floor area

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

Description

The applicant has proposed a 3-storey institutional "Kollel" building and a 4-storey rental apartment building. The proposed Kollel building includes 1,521 square meters of gross floor area while the apartment building contains 16 dwelling units and a total of 2,431 square metres of residential gross floor area. The proposal will result in a gross floor area density of 1.47 times the area of the lot.

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 · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence1
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 8 Eglinton-LawrenceMember of council1112 April 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=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied26%

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 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied33—100% (n=3)0%12%0.00
Matched, unlobbied57—100% (n=3)0%26%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.