Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
1682 Bayview Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.70826, -79.37641
- 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 22 December 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 268050 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 December 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 267151 STE 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 268050 STE 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 December 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 267151 STE 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 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
701 Soudan Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 267151 STE 22 OZ · submitted 23 December 2014 · Closed · from registration SM20880 (The Brown Group)
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 SM20880: 701-713 Soudan Avenue, 1674-1684 Bayview Avenue , 720 Hillsdale Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 267151 STE 22 OZ at 701 Soudan Ave: Proposal for official plan amendment and rezoning related to a proposed 7 storey mixed use building with a commercial ground floor and residential above (a total of 146 units) with 3 levels of underground parking (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 701-713 Soudan Avenue, 1674-1684 Bayview Avenue , 720 Hillsdale Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 701-713 SOUDAN AVE
- application_address
- 701 SOUDAN 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.
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 · 1,236 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 | 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=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 15
20 lobbied · 36 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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 15% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 36 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 30% | 0.01 |
| 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.