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

Development application 23 119635 NNY 15 OZ

49 Lawrence Ave E; 51 Lawrence Ave E; 53 Lawrence Ave E; 55 Lawrence Ave E; 57 Lawrence Ave E; 59 Lawrence Ave E

Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos LinDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: OMB Appeal; In progress
Submitted: 3 March 2023; Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 49 Lawrence Ave E; 51 Lawrence Ave E; 53 Lawrence Ave E; 55 Lawrence Ave E; 57 Lawrence Ave E; 59 Lawrence Ave E
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 3 March 2023
Status: OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: Yes
Size stated in the description: 40 units; 5,755 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Proposed 9-storey mid-rise residential building, consisting of a total 5,755 sq. m. GFA and 4.13 FSI. The proposed development consists of 40 units, including 4 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units. Two levles underground parking garage would be provided in this proposed development, including 41 vehicle parking spaces, 1 type C loading space, and 44 bicycle parking spaces.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

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 15

20 lobbied · 36 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=5

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied10%
Matched, unlobbied25%

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 15: 20 lobbied and 36 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	20	—	100% (n=2)	0%	10%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	36	—	100% (n=5)	0%	25%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	573	1,925	100% (n=64)	0%	13%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	763	1,793	98% (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.