Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
1 Blue Goose St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.61673, -79.49580
- How this address was located
- Matched exactly to a City of Toronto address point.
Sources: City of Toronto Lobbyist Registry, Development Applications, Committee of Adjustment Applications and Address Points (open data). Lobbyist Registry · Development Applications · Committee of Adjustment · Address Points
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
1These registrations name this address in their particulars, after the address was standardised (street type and direction abbreviations). This is a text match, not an inferred link.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Grimes, Ward 3 | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 16 January 2019 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM24638 | 1 Blue Goose Developments Inc. | 1 Blue Goose Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 31 May 2017 – 30 June 2019 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 6 June 2023Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0016/23EYKConditional Consent · Approved
- Submitted 3 May 2022Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0266/22EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 16 December 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5038340Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 9 September 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 217966 WET 03 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 March 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0228/17EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 December 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 270113 WET 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0016/23EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 6 June 2023 | Conditional Consent Approved |
| A0266/22EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 3 May 2022 | Closed Approved |
| COA-5038340 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 16 December 2021 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 19 217966 WET 03 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 September 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0228/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 March 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 16 270113 WET 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
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
1 Blue Goose St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 270113 WET 06 OZ · submitted 22 December 2016 · Closed · from registration SM24638 (1 Blue Goose Developments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM24638: 1 Blue Goose Street -- Rezoning Application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 270113 WET 06 OZ at 1 Blue Goose St: The proposal includes an infill development consisting of 7 townhouse dwelling units, 4 semi-detached dwelling units and 1 single detached dwelling. The existing mixed use building is remain which contains 18 apartment dwelling units, a resturant and a micro-brewery. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1 Blue Goose Street -- Rezoning Application
Matched fields
- address
- 1 BLUE GOOSE ST
- application_address
- 1 BLUE GOOSE ST
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Committee of Adjustment 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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
Submission to hearing. 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.
Committee of Adjustment 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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 3
4 lobbied · 265 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 265 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
Submission to hearing. 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.
Development 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | — | 71% (n=10) | 29% | 4% | 0.14 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
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.
Development 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 3
37 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 37 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 16% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 96% (n=78) | 4% | 14% | 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.