Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 23 175768 STE 11 OZ
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 17 July 2023
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 64 Prince Arthur Ave
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 17 July 2023
- 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
- 95 units
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 permit a 13-storey residential building, containing 95 dwelling units. An Official Plan Amendment was requested to ensure the conformity of the proposed built form but was deemed unnecessary.
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
Forgestone Capital · registration SM34482
64 Prince Arthur Ave
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM34482: 64 Prince Arthur Ave (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 23 175768 STE 11 OZ at 64 Prince Arthur Ave: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 13-storey residential building, containing 95 dwelling units. An Official Plan Amendment was requested to ensure the conformity of the proposed built form but was deemed unnecessary. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 64 Prince Arthur Ave
Matched fields
- address
- 64 PRINCE ARTHUR AVE
- application_address
- 64 PRINCE ARTHUR AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dianne Saxe | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 17 July 2023 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Adi Development Group Inc.SM25510 · 11 January 2018 · “64 Prince Arthur Avenue.”
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 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 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.