Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
103 Overbrook Pl
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.76324, -79.45419
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 6 York Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 30 July 2019 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM28631 | Cairn Merchant Partners | 103 Overbrook Place. | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian… | 30 July 2019 – 3 March 2021 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 20 March 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 124768 NNY 06 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 June 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 173835 NNY 06 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 January 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0038/19NYClosed · Approved
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 124768 NNY 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 March 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 173835 NNY 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 18 June 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0038/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 23 January 2019 | Closed Approved |
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
147 Elder St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 173835 NNY 06 SA · submitted 18 June 2019 · Closed · from registration SM28631 (Cairn Merchant Partners)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM28631: A Site Plan Agreement application and a Minor Variance for the site 103 Overbrook Place. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 173835 NNY 06 SA at 147 Elder St: Three storey addition (953 sqm) to the existing nursing home. A total of 7 new parking spaces are proposed in addition to the existing 13 parking spaces at 147-151 Elder St. One type "C" loading space is proposed. The existing dwelling at 103 Overbrook Pl. will be demolished. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: A Site Plan Agreement application and a Minor Variance for the site 103 Overbrook Place.
Matched fields
- address
- 103 OVERBROOK PL
- application_address
- 103 OVERBROOK PL
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 6
17 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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=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.
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 6
2 lobbied · 14 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | 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.