Address · Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
1962 Queen St E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
- Location
- 43.66999, -79.30207
- 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
1These 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· 6 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor McMahon | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 7 May 2012 |
| Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 7 May 2012 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 7 May 2012 |
| Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 8 May 2012 |
| Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 8 May 2012 |
| Ward 32 Beaches-East York | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 7 May 2012 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM18060 | 1960 Queen Street E. Ltd | 1962 Queen Street East | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 29 April 2012 – 31 December 2012 | 6 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 26 January 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 108919 STE 32 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 6 April 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 166499 STE 32 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 6 April 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 166506 STE 32 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 108919 STE 32 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 January 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 166499 STE 32 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 6 April 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 166506 STE 32 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 6 April 2011 | 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
1960 Queen St E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 166499 STE 32 OZ · submitted 6 April 2011 · Closed · from registration SM18060 (1960 Queen Street E. Ltd)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.97
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 SM18060: Retained to provide strategic advice for the rezoning application at 1960 and 1962 Queen Street East (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 166499 STE 32 OZ at 1960 Queen St E: Rezoning application for new 6 storey mixed use building containing retail on ground floor and residential above - 29 residential units - 25 Below grade parking spaces - 2 Visitor Parking at grade - 37 Bicycle parking spaces. See 166506 STE 32 SA for Site Plan approval application. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Retained to provide strategic advice for the rezoning application at 1960 and 1962 Queen Street East
Matched fields
- address
- 1962 QUEEN ST E
- application_address
- 1962A QUEEN ST E
1960 A Queen St E · Site Plan Approval (SA)
11 166506 STE 32 SA · submitted 6 April 2011 · Closed · from registration SM17671 (Reserve Properties Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM17671: lobbying for developments at 2000 Queen Street East, Toronto; 1986 Queen Street East, Toronto, 1960 Queen Street East, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 166506 STE 32 SA at 1960 A Queen St E: Site Plan Approval application for new 6 storey mixed use building containing retail on ground floor and residential above - 29 residential units - 25 Below grade parking spaces - 2 Visitor Parking at grade - 37 Bicycle parking spaces. See 11 166499 STE 32 OZ for Rezoning. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: lobbying for developments at 2000 Queen Street East, Toronto; 1986 Queen Street East, Toronto, 1960 Queen Street East, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 1960 QUEEN ST E
- application_address
- 1960A QUEEN ST E
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), Ward 19
1 lobbied · 1 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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 19
7 lobbied · 10 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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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.
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 19
6 lobbied · 28 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 | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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.