Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
1144 Islington Avenue
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.63964, -79.52156
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 1144B ISLINGTON AVE.
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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM11010 | Genview Development Corporation | 1144 Islington Avenue | Planning Act Applications: Site Plan | 15 February 2008 – 28 September 2012 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 18 December 2013Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 13 279626 WET 05 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 April 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 153621 WET 05 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 March 2008Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 08 117374 WET 05 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 March 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 117383 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 279626 WET 05 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 18 December 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 153621 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 April 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 117374 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 March 2008 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 117383 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 7 March 2008 | 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
1144 Islington Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
08 117383 WET 05 SA · submitted 7 March 2008 · Closed · from registration SM11010 (Genview Development Corporation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.89
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 SM11010: To review and receive acceptance in regard to Site Plan for development and building of proposed residential units located at 1144 Islington Avenue, Etobicoke, Part of Lots 28/29, Registered Plan No. 1553. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 117383 WET 05 SA at 1144 Islington Ave: Proposed development of eleven townhouses (condominium) within two blocks (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …iew and receive acceptance in regard to Site Plan for development and building of proposed residential units located at 1144 Islington Avenue, Etobicoke, Part of Lots 28/29, Registered Plan No. 1553.
Matched fields
- address
- 1144 ISLINGTON AVE
- application_address
- 1144 ISLINGTON AVE
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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
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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 19% | 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 | 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | 1,629 | 70% (n=10) | 30% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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.