lobbyTO

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

Development application 10 227038 NNY 24 OZ

1001-1019 Sheppard Avenue East; 1019 Sheppard Ave E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
23 July 2010
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
10
10 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
1001-1019 Sheppard Avenue East; 1019 Sheppard Ave E
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
23 July 2010
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
09 133474 NNY 24 OZ

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

Description

Re-designate park and mixed use blocks and amend the existing zoning by-law performance standards, including height and density. Also seeking revisions to draft plan of subdivision. Applicant appealed in November 2011. Settlement endorsed by City Council Nov 26, 27 & 28, 2012. Approved by the OMB by Order dated March 8, 2013.

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

3 linked registrations · 10 communications · 10 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 24 Willowdale9
  • Office of Councillor Shiner, Ward 241
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 24 WillowdaleMember of council9923 August 2012
Office of Councillor Shiner, Ward 24Councillor staff1119 July 2012

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 17

13 lobbied · 16 matched

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

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 17: 13 lobbied and 16 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.