Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
131 Farnham Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.68214, -79.39814
- 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
6These 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Josh Matlow | Councillor staff | 5 | 0 | 4 October 2022 |
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 3 February 2016 |
| Josh Matlow | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 2 August 2022 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 30 December 2014 |
| Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 4 October 2022 |
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM33366 | De Lasalle College | 131 Farnham Avenue. | Health & Safety; Planning and Development Application | 17 June 2022 – 1 March 2023 | 7 |
| SM31807 | De La Salle College "Oaklands" | 131 Farnham Ave. | Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 13 June 2021 – 4 June 2022 | 0 |
| SM31716 | De LaSalle College (Oaklands) | 131 Farnham Avenue | Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 21 May 2021 – 30 September 2021 | 0 |
| SM21191 | Conica Glen Home Corp. | 131 Farnham Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 30 December 2014 – 30 December 2016 | 2 |
| SM19508 | De La Salle College "Oaklands" | 131 Farnham Avenue | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 8 July 2013 – 24 March 2014 | 1 |
| SM19421 | De La Salle College "Oaklands" | 131 Farnham Avenue. | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 18 June 2013 – 17 June 2014 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
7- Submitted 21 June 2022Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0714/22TEYApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn
- Submitted 14 June 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 161885 STE 12 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 September 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 225558 STE 12 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 February 2018Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0018/18TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 2 November 2016Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0072/16TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 12 December 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 263627 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 12 December 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 263631 STE 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 7 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0714/22TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 June 2022 | Application Withdrawn Withdrawn |
| 22 161885 STE 12 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 June 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 225558 STE 12 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 23 September 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0018/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 14 February 2018 | Closed Approved |
| B0072/16TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 2 November 2016 | Closed Approved |
| 14 263627 STE 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 12 December 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 263631 STE 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 12 December 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
131 Farnham Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
22 161885 STE 12 SA · submitted 14 June 2022 · Closed · from registration SM33366 (De Lasalle College)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM33366: Phil Gillies Consulting (PGC) will be advocating for the renovation and construction of a new student Health and Wellness Centre at De LaSalle School Oaklands Campus at 131 Farnham Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 161885 STE 12 SA at 131 Farnham Ave: Site Plan Application for proposed 1 storey addition the east side and a 2 storey addition to the west side of the existing arena building - De La Salle College (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …for the renovation and construction of a new student Health and Wellness Centre at De LaSalle School Oaklands Campus at 131 Farnham Avenue.
Matched fields
- address
- 131 FARNHAM AVE
- application_address
- 131 FARNHAM AVE
131 Farnham Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 263631 STE 22 OZ · submitted 12 December 2014 · Closed · from registration SM21191 (Conica Glen Home Corp.)
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 SM21191: 131 Farnham Avenue -- Rezoning Application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 263631 STE 22 OZ at 131 Farnham Ave: To allow for the rezoning of the subject lands for 4 blocks of townhouses that are three storeys in height along Avenue Rd and four storeys in height along Oaklands Ave. A total 19 townhouse units will be constructed with individual garages. The building at the corner of Avenue Rd and Oaklands Ave … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 131 Farnham Avenue -- Rezoning Application
Matched fields
- address
- 131 FARNHAM AVE
- application_address
- 131 FARNHAM AVE
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 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 20 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.
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 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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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.
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 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 11 | 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 | 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.
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 12
44 lobbied · 60 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 | 44 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 14% | 0.02 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 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.