Address · Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
213 Emerson Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Location
- 43.66631, -79.44347
- 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
6- Submitted 24 December 2024Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 24 253550 STE 09 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 April 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 130626 STE 09 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 17 August 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 181703 STE 09 SAFinal Approval Completed · Approved
- Submitted 22 March 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 129482 STE 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 2 May 2018Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 18 152282 STE 18 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 September 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 231334 STE 18 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 253550 STE 09 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 24 December 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 22 130626 STE 09 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 April 2022 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 20 181703 STE 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 August 2020 | Final Approval Completed Approved |
| 19 129482 STE 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 March 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 152282 STE 18 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 2 May 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 231334 STE 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 September 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
- 1245 and 1285 Dupont Street, 1260 Dufferin Street, and 213 Emerson Avenue - Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing - Request for Directions2024.CC24.11 · 18 December 2024
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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 9
19 lobbied · 28 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 | 19 | 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 | 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 9
20 lobbied · 21 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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| 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.