Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
144 Berry Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.63787, -79.48687
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 140 BERRY RD (4 civic numbers away).
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
7- Submitted 16 May 2022Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 22 147264 WET 03 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 26 April 2022Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 22 138393 WET 03 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 August 2018Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 18 210405 WET 03 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 July 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0069/17EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 23 August 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 211488 WET 05 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 18 July 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 193159 WET 05 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 July 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 193182 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 7 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 147264 WET 03 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 16 May 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 22 138393 WET 03 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 April 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 210405 WET 03 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 16 August 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0069/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 17 July 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 16 211488 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 August 2016 | Under Review In progress |
| 14 193159 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 18 July 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 193182 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 18 July 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
144 Berry Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 193159 WET 05 OZ · submitted 18 July 2014 · Closed · from registration SM22485 (2384903 Ontario Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.71
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 SM22485: Re: properties at 144 & 150 Berry Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 193159 WET 05 OZ at 144 Berry Rd: Proposed amendments to former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code and City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 to permit a mixed use development. The development would include a portion of a new private road and publicly accessible open space, and a 2-storey commercial building containing a grocery store, … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re: properties at 144 & 150 Berry Road
Matched fields
- address
- 144&150 BERRY RD
- application_address
- 144 BERRY RD
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.
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.
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.
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.