lobbyTO

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

Development application 22 184087 NNY 16 OZ

10 Ferrand Dr; 789-793 Don Mills Road; 793 Don Mills Rd

Status
Appeal Received
In progress
Submitted
29 July 2022
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
10 Ferrand Dr; 789-793 Don Mills Road; 793 Don Mills Rd
Ward
Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
Submitted
29 July 2022
Status
Appeal Received
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
139,068 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Proposed development consists of three (3) phases. Phase One is - privately Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space (POPS) with below grade parking in the existing conference centre. Phase Two - proposes two towers of 56 and 49 storeys (Buildings A and B, respectively) connected with a 4-11 storeys podium. Phase Three- proposes two towers of 45 and 22 storeys in height (Buildings C and D, respectively) connected by an 4 - 7 storey podium. Total proposed Residential GFA is 139,068 m2.

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 · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Jon BurnsideMember of council223 April 2023

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 16

4 lobbied · 8 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 16: 4 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied8Hidden: 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.