Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
160 Vanderhoof Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.71436, -79.35319
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 26 Don Valley West | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 14 January 2015 |
| Office of Councillor Parker, Ward 26 | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 16 June 2013 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM19623 | Aspen Ridge Homes | 160 Vanderhoof Ave. | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 29 August 2013 – 31 December 2018 | 3 |
| SM19413 | Aspen Ridge Homes | 160 Vanderhoof Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance | 13 June 2013 – 13 June 2014 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 23 December 2015Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 15 268879 NNY 26 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 6 December 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 289795 NNY 26 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 268879 NNY 26 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 23 December 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 289795 NNY 26 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 6 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
160 Vanderhoof Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 289795 NNY 26 SA · submitted 6 December 2012 · Closed · from registration SM19413 (Aspen Ridge Homes)
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 SM19413: Minor variance and site plan applications for 160 Vanderhoof Avenue and consultation process (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 289795 NNY 26 SA at 160 Vanderhoof Ave: 18 storey residential building containing ten, two storey townhouses and 316 apartment dwelling units above , ground floor recreational area and six levels of underground parking - Scenic III (ARH) Developments Ltd. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Minor variance and site plan applications for 160 Vanderhoof Avenue and consultation process
Matched fields
- address
- 160 VANDERHOOF AVE
- application_address
- 160 VANDERHOOF AVE
160 Vanderhoof Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 289795 NNY 26 SA · submitted 6 December 2012 · Closed · from registration SM19623 (Aspen Ridge Homes)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM19623: RE the development at 160 Vanderhoof Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 289795 NNY 26 SA at 160 Vanderhoof Ave: 18 storey residential building containing ten, two storey townhouses and 316 apartment dwelling units above , ground floor recreational area and six levels of underground parking - Scenic III (ARH) Developments Ltd. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: RE the development at 160 Vanderhoof Ave.
Matched fields
- address
- 160 VANDERHOOF AVE
- application_address
- 160 VANDERHOOF AVE
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.
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 15
12 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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 | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (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.