lobbyTO

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

Development application 23 101352 WET 02 OZ

250 Wincott Dr; 4620 Eglinton Ave W

Status
OMB Appeal
In progress
Submitted
6 January 2023
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
22
17 meetings · 4 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
250 Wincott Dr; 4620 Eglinton Ave W
Ward
Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
Submitted
6 January 2023
Status
OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Related file
18 150932 WET 04 OZ

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 construction of two new mixed-use buildings with heights of 24 and 29 storeys (Buildings A and B respectively). The proposal includes the provision of a 1,700 square metre public park and a 659 square metre privately-owned, publicly accessible space.

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 · 22 communications · 17 meetings · 4 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 2 Etobicoke CentreMember of council9915 June 2021
Stephen HolydayMember of council6612 January 2026
Olivia ChowMember of council5014 December 2023
Ward 1 Etobicoke NorthMember of council1116 April 2021
Stephen HolydayCouncillor staff1126 May 2025

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 2

9 lobbied · 10 matched

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

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 2: 9 lobbied and 10 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied9Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied10Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.