lobbyTO

Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow

129 St Clair Ave W

Registrations naming this address
6
4 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
16
8 offices contacted
Applications at this address
7
6 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
Location
43.68661, -79.40019
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

6

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

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Ward 22 St. Paul's8
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina2
  • Office of Councillor Josh Matlow, Ward 221
  • Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's1
  • Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina1
  • Ward 21 St. Paul's1
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale1
  • Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth1
Data table· 8 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council879 February 2012
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council229 February 2012
Office of Councillor Josh Matlow, Ward 22Councillor staff109 February 2012
Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul'sMember of council108 March 2021
Ward 19 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council1128 January 2012
Ward 21 St. Paul'sMember of council119 February 2012
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council1130 January 2012
Ward 30 Toronto-DanforthMember of council1031 January 2012
All registrations· 6 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM31349Churchterrace Developments Inc.129 St. Clair Avenue West.Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance; Planning …8 March 2021 – 31 December 20211
SM17744Diamondcorp129 St Clair Ave WPlanning and Development, Combined Application27 January 2012 – 25 April 20122
SM17447Whitecastle New Urban Fund129 St. Clair Avenue West.Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning a…11 November 2011 – 9 November 20124
SM17399Diamond Corp129 St. Clair Avenue West.Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law3 November 2011 – 2 June 20146
SM17401Whitecastle New Urban Fund129 St. Clair Avenue WestPlanning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law3 November 2011 – 13 November 20133
SM16602Diamond Corp129 St. Clair Avenue WestPlanning and Development Application, Plan of Condominium20 June 2011 – 20 June 20120

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

7
Data table· 7 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
A0606/21TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)9 March 2021Closed
Approved
21 115735 STE 12 PL
Development application
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)12 February 2021Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
20 203570 STE 12 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)6 October 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 105376 STE 22 PL
Development application
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)16 January 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 269709 STE 22 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)25 November 2013Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 123806 STE 22 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)10 February 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
10 314966 STE 22 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)15 December 2010Closed
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

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 12

20 lobbied · 357 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied106
  • Matched, unlobbied145

Approval rate

  • Lobbied50% n=12
  • Matched, unlobbied90% n=291

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied50%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied35%
  • Matched, unlobbied5%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied86%
  • Matched, unlobbied30%

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 12: 20 lobbied and 357 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2010650% (n=12)50%35%86%
Matched, unlobbied35714590% (n=291)10%5%30%
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.

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 matched

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

Data table· 2 rows
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide: 2 lobbied and 6 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied6Hidden: 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.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 12

5 lobbied · 11 matched

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

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 12: 5 lobbied and 11 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied11Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12

32 lobbied · 72 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied511

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=4
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12: 32 lobbied and 72 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied32—100% (n=4)0%3%0.00
Matched, unlobbied72511100% (n=7)0%0%0.05
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.

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 12

44 lobbied · 60 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,799

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=9
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=9

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied14%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 12: 44 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied441,925100% (n=9)0%14%0.02
Matched, unlobbied601,799100% (n=9)0%10%0.04
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.