lobbyTO

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

Development application 22 139337 ESC 20 OZ

2823 Eglinton Ave E; 2829 Eglinton Ave E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
27 April 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
27
6 meetings · 8 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
2823 Eglinton Ave E; 2829 Eglinton Ave E
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
27 April 2022
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
190 units; 672 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Rezoning for a proposed 14-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 672 square metres, and a residential gross floor 14,559 square metres. 190 dwelling units are proposed.

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 · 27 communications · 6 meetings · 8 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 9 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Parthi KandavelMember of council8227 May 2025
Michael ThompsonMember of council5026 June 2025
Ward 20 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council435 May 2022
Gary CrawfordCouncillor staff3113 April 2022
Paul AinslieMember of council3018 June 2025
Jamaal MyersMember of council1028 May 2025
Nick MantasMember of council1028 May 2025
Olivia ChowMember of council1020 May 2025
Parthi KandavelCouncillor staff1022 April 2025

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 20

13 lobbied · 19 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 20: 13 lobbied and 19 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied19Hidden: 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.