lobbyTO

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

Development application 22 242103 STE 13 OZ

17 Gould St; 38 Dundas St E; 44 Gerrard St E; 50 Gould St; 55 Gould St; 87 Gerrard St E; 101 Bond St; 101 Gerrard St E; 104 Bond St; 105 Gerrard St E; 110 Bond St; 111 Bond St; 112 Bond St; 122 Bond St; 125 Bond St; 136 Dundas St E; 137 Bond St; 202 Jarvis St; 240 Jarvis St; 245 Church St; 270 Church St; 277 Victoria St; 285 Victoria St; 296 Church St; 297 Victoria St; 322 Church St; 341-355 Yonge St; 350 Victoria St; 380 Victoria St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
23 December 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
17 Gould St; 38 Dundas St E; 44 Gerrard St E; 50 Gould St; 55 Gould St; 87 Gerrard St E; 101 Bond St; 101 Gerrard St E; 104 Bond St; 105 Gerrard St E; 110 Bond St; 111 Bond St; 112 Bond St; 122 Bond St; 125 Bond St; 136 Dundas St E; 137 Bond St; 202 Jarvis St; 240 Jarvis St; 245 Church St; 270 Church St; 277 Victoria St; 285 Victoria St; 296 Church St; 297 Victoria St; 322 Church St; 341-355 Yonge St; 350 Victoria St; 380 Victoria St
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
23 December 2022
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded

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

Description

This is an application that is to address two main objectives: 1) to bring the portion of the university's lands currently zoned under the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 into the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013; and 2) to establish bicycle parking, loading space, and automobile parking rates for lands owned and operated by Toronto Metropolitan University as an overlay approach in By-law 569-2013. No development is proposed as part of this application.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

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 13

83 lobbied · 97 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=10
  • Matched, unlobbied93% n=14

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied7%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied11%
  • Matched, unlobbied17%

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 13: 83 lobbied and 97 matched unlobbied applications in 34 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied83—100% (n=10)0%11%0.14
Matched, unlobbied971,79393% (n=14)7%17%0.08
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.