Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Development application 22 208860 STE 11 OZ
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 26 September 2022
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
- Addresses
- 18 Elm St
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 26 September 2022
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 247 units
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
The application proposes to amend Zoning By-law 569-2013 to permit a 44-storey mixed use building containing 247 residential dwelling units and 362 square metres of retail space.
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
Brydson Group Inc. · registration SM34302
ZBL amendment application for 18 Elm Street.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM34302: ZBL amendment application for 18 Elm Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 208860 STE 11 OZ at 18 Elm St: The application proposes to amend Zoning By-law 569-2013 to permit a 44-storey mixed use building containing 247 residential dwelling units and 362 square metres of retail space. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: ZBL amendment application for 18 Elm Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 18 ELM ST
- application_address
- 18 ELM ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dianne Saxe | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 16 November 2023 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther 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 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (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.