lobbyTO

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

Development application 26 101902 STE 12 OZ

15 Lola Rd; 2010 Yonge St; 2026 Yonge St; 2028 Yonge St; 2030 Yonge St; 2032 Yonge St; 2034 Yonge St; 2036 Yonge St; 2038 Yonge St; 2040 Yonge St; 2042 Yonge St; 2044 Yonge St; 2046 Yonge St; 2050 Yonge St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
7 January 2026
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
1 meeting · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
15 Lola Rd; 2010 Yonge St; 2026 Yonge St; 2028 Yonge St; 2030 Yonge St; 2032 Yonge St; 2034 Yonge St; 2036 Yonge St; 2038 Yonge St; 2040 Yonge St; 2042 Yonge St; 2044 Yonge St; 2046 Yonge St; 2050 Yonge St
Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Submitted
7 January 2026
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
21 235352 STE 12 OZ

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

Description

Zoning By-law Amendment for a 14-storey mixed-use building

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 · 3 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Josh MatlowCouncillor staff3115 April 2026

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.

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 12

44 lobbied · 60 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,799

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=9
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=9

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied14%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

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 12: 44 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied441,925100% (n=9)0%14%0.02
Matched, unlobbied601,799100% (n=9)0%10%0.04
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.