lobbyTO

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

Development application 25 271066 NNY 15 OZ

59 Hoyle Ave; 61 Hoyle Ave; 537 Eglinton Ave E; 539 Eglinton Ave E; 541 Eglinton Ave E; 543 Eglinton Ave E; 545 Eglinton Ave E; 547 Eglinton Ave E; 551 Eglinton Ave E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
31 December 2025
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
59 Hoyle Ave; 61 Hoyle Ave; 537 Eglinton Ave E; 539 Eglinton Ave E; 541 Eglinton Ave E; 543 Eglinton Ave E; 545 Eglinton Ave E; 547 Eglinton Ave E; 551 Eglinton Ave E
Ward
Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted
31 December 2025
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
383 units

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

Description

Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Application proposes the development of a 35-storey mixed-use building. The building will provide a total of 383 residential units and 92 vehicular parking spaces. The proposed development provides a total gross floor area of 281,538 square feet.The Official Plan Amendment has been submitted for the properties at 537-551 Eglinton Avenue East and 59-61 Hoyle Avenue East. The amendment proposes to redesignate the lands on Map 17, Land Use Plan of the Official Plan, from Apartment Neighbourhoods to Mixed-Use Areas.In addition, amendments to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (Maps 21-2, 21-3, and 21-4) are proposed to re-designate the lands as follows: -from Eglinton East Character Area to Bayview Focus Area;-from Secondary Transit Zone to Station Core Area, and;-from Apartment Neighbourhoods to Mixed-Use Areas "B".

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied20—100% (n=2)0%10%0.05
Matched, unlobbied36—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
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.