126 Riverview Dr

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 2; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 0
Applications at this address: 1; 2 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Location: 43.73271, -79.39294
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

Registrations that mention this address

These 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

Anastasia and Ted ManziarisSM30569 · 18 September 20200
Anastasia and Ted ManziarisSM30571 · 18 September 20200

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

No communications recorded.

All registrations· 2 rows

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM30569	Anastasia and Ted Manziaris	126 Riverview Drive	Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance	18 September 2020 – 1 May 2023	0
SM30571	Anastasia and Ted Manziaris	126 Riverview Drive	Planning and Development Application; Minor Variance	18 September 2020 – 18 September 2022	0

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 26 June 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0369/20NYClosed · Approved

Data table· 1 row

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0369/20NY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	26 June 2020	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

126 Riverview Dr · Minor variance (MV)
A0369/20NY · submitted 26 June 2020 · Closed · from registration SM30569 (Anastasia and Ted Manziaris)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM30569: 126 Riverview Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0369/20NY at 126 Riverview Dr: Proposal to construct a new dwelling. Please note, this application was deferred on October 15, 2020 for revisions to the architectural design. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 126 Riverview Drive
Matched fields
address
126 RIVERVIEW DR
application_address
126 RIVERVIEW DR
126 Riverview Dr · Minor variance (MV)
A0369/20NY · submitted 26 June 2020 · Closed · from registration SM30571 (Anastasia and Ted Manziaris)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM30571: 126 Riverview Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0369/20NY at 126 Riverview Dr: Proposal to construct a new dwelling. Please note, this application was deferred on October 15, 2020 for revisions to the architectural design. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 126 Riverview Drive
Matched fields
address
126 RIVERVIEW DR
application_address
126 RIVERVIEW DR

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.

Minor variance (MV), Ward 15

5 lobbied · 419 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

Lobbied126
Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

Lobbied75% n=154
Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

Lobbied19%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

Lobbied43%
Matched, unlobbied27%

Data table· 4 rows

Minor variance (MV), Ward 15: 5 lobbied and 419 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	5	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	419	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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.