Address · Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
102-134 Hucknall Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
- Location
- 43.75666, -79.49821
- 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 Perruzza | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 12 September 2011 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM11821 | Averton Developments Inc. | 102-134 Hucknall Road | Planning Application - Official Plan & Zoning Amendment, Site Plan Approval, Draft Plan of Subdivis… | 13 March 2008 – 28 February 2014 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 17 December 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 279110 NNY 08 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 November 2011Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 11 306275 NNY 08 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 October 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 269669 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 April 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 131219 NNY 08 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 279110 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 17 December 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 306275 NNY 08 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 7 November 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 269669 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 1 October 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 28 April 2009 | 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
102-134 Hucknall Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 279110 NNY 08 OZ · submitted 17 December 2013 · Closed · from registration SM11821 (Averton Developments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM11821: 102-134 Hucknall Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 279110 NNY 08 OZ at 102-134 Hucknall Rd: The proposed development consists of a four storey residential mixed use building with street related retail at grade. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 102-134 Hucknall Road
Matched fields
- address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
- application_address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
102-134 Hucknall Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
10 269669 NNY 08 SA · submitted 1 October 2010 · Closed · from registration SM11821 (Averton 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 SM11821: 102-134 Hucknall Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 269669 NNY 08 SA at 102-134 Hucknall Rd: Site Plan control application for mixed use development containing 47 three storey townhouse dwelling units and a single storey commercial building. Implements OMB-approved Zoning By-law 1186-2010(OMB). X-Ref with previous file 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ) (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 102-134 Hucknall Road
Matched fields
- address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
- application_address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
102-134 Hucknall Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
09 131219 NNY 08 OZ · submitted 28 April 2009 · Closed · from registration SM11821 (Averton Developments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM11821: 102-134 Hucknall Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ at 102-134 Hucknall Rd: Proposal for 47 three-storey townhouses with a 1,022m2 commercial plaza (17 parking spaces) with a new public road and pedestrian connection to Sentinel Park to the south. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 102-134 Hucknall Road
Matched fields
- address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
- application_address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
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 7
7 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: 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 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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 7
5 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.