Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
200 Madison Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.67658, -79.40669
- 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affordable Housing Office | City staff | 13 | 4 | 1 May 2014 |
| Office of Councillor Josh Matlow, Ward 22 | Councillor staff | 11 | 2 | 10 September 2013 |
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 7 | 2 | 9 April 2013 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM18044 | 1244947 Ontario Ltd | 200 Madison Ave | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 21 April 2012 – 29 May 2014 | 31 |
| SM11089 | St. Clare's Multifaith Housing Society | 200 Madison Avenue | Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application | 11 February 2008 – 31 December 2008 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 3 August 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 200831 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 6 July 2016Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0723/16TEYClosed · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 200831 STE 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 August 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0723/16TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 6 July 2016 | Closed Approved |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
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.
Committee of Adjustment 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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 12
20 lobbied · 357 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
Submission to hearing. 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.