Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
1061 The Queensway
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.62166, -79.51962
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
10- Submitted 24 October 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 218161 WET 03 SARefused · Refused
- Submitted 24 October 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 218177 WET 03 SARefused · Refused
- Submitted 8 September 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5331727Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 31 July 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0353/23EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 27 June 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5292776Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 16 May 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0484/17EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 8 June 2016Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0042/16EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 3 November 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 246795 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 October 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 241637 WET 05 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 21 October 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 240949 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 10 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 218161 WET 03 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 October 2023 | Refused Refused |
| 23 218177 WET 03 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 October 2023 | Refused Refused |
| COA-5331727 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 September 2023 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| A0353/23EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 31 July 2023 | Closed Approved |
| COA-5292776 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 June 2023 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| A0484/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 16 May 2017 | Closed Approved |
| B0042/16EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 8 June 2016 | Closed Approved |
| 14 246795 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 November 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 241637 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 October 2014 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 14 240949 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 October 2014 | 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
1061 The Queensway · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 241637 WET 05 OZ · submitted 22 October 2014 · OMB Appeal · from registration SM20137 (Sobey's Developments Limited Partnership)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM20137: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval - 1061 The Queensway City Application No.: 14240949 WET 05 SA and City Application No.: 14241637 WET 05 OZ (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 241637 WET 05 OZ at 1061 The Queensway: Proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of three residential apartments (26-, 34- and 43-storeys) on a 5-storey podium containing 1,166 residential units and approximately 505 square metres of retail gross floor area (GFA) at-grade. A total of 49… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …mendment and Site Plan Approval - 1061 The Queensway City Application No.: 14240949 WET 05 SA and City Application No.: 14241637 WET 05 OZ
Matched fields
- file_number
- 14 241637 WET 05 OZ
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
1061 The Queensway · Site Plan Approval (SA)
14 240949 WET 05 SA · submitted 21 October 2014 · Closed · from registration SM20137 (Sobey's Developments Limited Partnership)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM20137: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval - 1061 The Queensway City Application No.: 14240949 WET 05 SA and City Application No.: 14241637 WET 05 OZ (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 240949 WET 05 SA at 1061 The Queensway: Proposed development of three retail buidings. Retail A will consist of a grocery store, with total gross floor area (GFA) of 3,765.94 square metres. Retail B is proposed to have a gross floor area of 626.61 square metres and Retail C is proposed to have a gross floor area of 734.80 square metres. … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval - 1061 The Queensway City Application No.: 14240949 WET 05 SA and City Application No.: 14241637 WET 05 OZ
Matched fields
- file_number
- 14 240949 WET 05 SA
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.