Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
1486 Bathurst St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.68376, -79.41895
- 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
2These 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Mihevc, Ward 21 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 29 April 2014 |
| Ward 21 St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 29 April 2014 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM20371 | 1486 Bathurst Inc. | 1486 Bathurst Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 28 April 2014 – 28 April 2017 | 2 |
| SM20375 | The Goldman Group | 1486 Bathurst Street. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla… | 28 April 2014 – 31 December 2017 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 13 February 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 115306 STE 12 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 January 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 108158 STE 12 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 December 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 293351 STE 21 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 December 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 293366 STE 21 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 115306 STE 12 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 13 February 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 108158 STE 12 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 24 January 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 293351 STE 21 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 13 December 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 293366 STE 21 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 13 December 2012 | 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
1486 Bathurst St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 293351 STE 21 SA · submitted 13 December 2012 · Closed · from registration SM20375 (The Goldman Group)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.96
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM20375: Ontario Municipal Board Settlement of the rezoning and site plan applications for 1486 Bathurst Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 293351 STE 21 SA at 1486 Bathurst St: Applications for rezoning and site plan approval for an 18 storey (61.7m) residential (8404m2) commerical (148m2) mixed use building with 59 total parking spots 2 on open surface and 57 below grade at 1486 Bathurst St and 11 Raglan Ave. See associated rezoning by-law amendment 12-293366. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Ontario Municipal Board Settlement of the rezoning and site plan applications for 1486 Bathurst Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 1486 BATHURST ST
- application_address
- 1486 BATHURST ST
11 Raglan Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 293366 STE 21 OZ · submitted 13 December 2012 · Closed · from registration SM20375 (The Goldman Group)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM20375: Ontario Municipal Board Settlement of the rezoning and site plan applications for 1486 Bathurst Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 293366 STE 21 OZ at 11 Raglan Ave: An application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of an 18-storey (59.0 m plus mechanical penthouse) residential (8504.4 sq.m.) and commercial (126 sq.m.) mixed-use building at 1486 Bathurst Street. The building will contain a total of 93 residential units and 77 parking spaces. … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Ontario Municipal Board Settlement of the rezoning and site plan applications for 1486 Bathurst Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 1486 BATHURST ST
- application_address
- 1486 BATHURST ST
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.
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.
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.