Address · Ward 4 · Gord Perks
162 Vine Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 4 · Gord Perks
- Location
- 43.66685, -79.46966
- 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
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
2- Submitted 14 October 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 237147 WET 13 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 February 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 118564 WET 13 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 237147 WET 13 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 October 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 118564 WET 13 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 18 February 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
108 Vine Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 118564 WET 13 OZ · submitted 18 February 2014 · Closed · from registration SM20742 (The Sweet Potato Inc.)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM20742: 108 Vine Avenue, Application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ Input regarding advancing application for ZBL-A of a light industrial site for grocery store. Potential lobbying regarding OPA 231 and relevant appeals before the OMB. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ at 108 Vine Ave: Proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law to permit the development of a 1 670 m2 grocery store (The Sweet Potato) in the westerly portion of the 108 Vine Avenue building and to permit off-site parking at 162 Vine Avenue. See By-laws No. 104-2017 and 105-2017. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 108 Vine Avenue, Application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ Input regarding advancing application for ZBL-A of a light industrial site for grocery store. Potential lobbying regard…
- particulars: 108 Vine Avenue, Application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ Input regarding advancing application for ZBL-A of a light industrial site for grocery…
Matched fields
- file_number
- 14 118564 WET 13 OZ
- address
- 108 VINE AVE
- application_address
- 108 VINE AVE
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
108 Vine Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 118564 WET 13 OZ · submitted 18 February 2014 · Closed · from registration SM21471 (The Sweet Potato Inc.)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM21471: Zoning By-law Amendment application Application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ at 108 Vine Avenue; seeking to add a grocery store use as a permitted use. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ at 108 Vine Ave: Proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law to permit the development of a 1 670 m2 grocery store (The Sweet Potato) in the westerly portion of the 108 Vine Avenue building and to permit off-site parking at 162 Vine Avenue. See By-laws No. 104-2017 and 105-2017. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Zoning By-law Amendment application Application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ at 108 Vine Avenue; seeking to add a grocery store use as a permitted use.
- particulars: Zoning By-law Amendment application Application 14 118564 WET 13 OZ at 108 Vine Avenue; seeking to add a grocery store use as a permitted use.
Matched fields
- file_number
- 14 118564 WET 13 OZ
- address
- 108 VINE AVE
- application_address
- 108 VINE AVE
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
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 4
17 lobbied · 33 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 33 | 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=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 4
12 lobbied · 20 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 20 | 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 | 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.