lobbyTO

Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

21 Avenue Rd

Registrations naming this address
6
6 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
34
3 offices contacted
Applications at this address
9
5 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location
43.67012, -79.39443
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

Registrations that mention this address

6

These 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

  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale31
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale2
  • Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council311610 May 2013
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleCouncillor staff202 June 2015
Ward 20 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council1026 March 2013
All registrations· 6 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM18292Cumberland Yorkville Neighbourhood Coalition21 Avenue Road.Planning and Development Application, Consent to Sever25 July 2012 – 24 July 20131
SM18244Felcorp21 Avenue RdPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…3 July 2012 – 3 July 20130
SM17934Yorkville/Cumberland Neighbourhood Coalition21 Avenue RoadPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…22 March 2012 – 13 September 20137
SM14024Friends of Yorkville21 Avenue Road.Planning and Development Application, Official Plan20 January 2010 – 31 March 20100
SM13628MTCC 626, MTCC 1276, 130 Bloor KS Inc., Standard Toronto Condominium Corporation 192021 Avenue RoadPlanning and Development, Combined Application22 October 2009 – 21 October 20100
SM11216Camrost-Feldcorp21 Avenue RoadPlanning Application - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment11 February 2008 – 16 February 201726

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

9
Data table· 9 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
19 199158 STE 11 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)1 August 2019NOAC Issued
Approved
19 175827 STE 11 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)21 June 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 175878 STE 11 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)21 June 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 114711 STE 11 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)12 February 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
17 114962 STE 27 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)9 February 2017Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 258432 STE 27 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)1 December 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 126666 STE 27 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)28 February 2013Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 332281 STE 27 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)30 December 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 332287 STE 27 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)30 December 2011Closed
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

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 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied9%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied46—100% (n=3)0%9%0.09
Matched, unlobbied113—100% (n=11)0%2%0.02
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11

4 lobbied · 10 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11: 4 lobbied and 10 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied10Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—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 11

69 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=10
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied11%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied69—100% (n=10)0%10%0.04
Matched, unlobbied60—100% (n=4)0%11%0.03
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.