Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
225 Birmingham St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.60169, -79.51235
- 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 4 | 3 | 13 June 2016 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22070 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 225 Birmingham Street | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 23 July 2015 – 15 July 2020 | 2 |
| SM21297 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 225 Birmingham Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 20 January 2015 – 20 January 2020 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 9 February 2024Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 24 113838 WET 03 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 September 2022Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 22 206567 WET 03 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 269849 WET 06 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 February 2016Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 16 118656 WET 06 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 February 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 118661 WET 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 113838 WET 03 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 9 February 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 22 206567 WET 03 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 21 September 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 269849 WET 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 118656 WET 06 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 19 February 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 118661 WET 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 February 2016 | 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
225 Birmingham St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 269849 WET 06 SA · submitted 22 December 2016 · Closed · from registration SM21297 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM21297: 225 Birmingham Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 269849 WET 06 SA at 225 Birmingham St: Site Plan application for 200 stacked townhouse units and a retail building at the southwest corner of Birmingham Street and Twelfth Street. A new public park and a Twelfth Street extensions is part of the application. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 225 Birmingham Street
Matched fields
- address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
- application_address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
225 Birmingham St · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
16 118656 WET 06 SB · submitted 19 February 2016 · Closed · from registration SM21297 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM21297: 225 Birmingham Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 118656 WET 06 SB at 225 Birmingham St: Draft Plan of Subdivision to create a development consisting of 226 stacked townhouse dwelling units within 12 blocks above a shared underground parking structure, accessed via a private driveway from Birmingham Street. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 225 Birmingham Street
Matched fields
- address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
- application_address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
225 Birmingham St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 118661 WET 06 OZ · submitted 19 February 2016 · Closed · from registration SM21297 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM21297: 225 Birmingham Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 118661 WET 06 OZ at 225 Birmingham St: Rezoning application to create a development consisting of 200 stacked townhouse dwelling units within 12 blocks above a shared underground parking structure, accessed via a private driveway from Birmingham Street. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 225 Birmingham Street
Matched fields
- address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
- application_address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
225 Birmingham St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 118661 WET 06 OZ · submitted 19 February 2016 · Closed · from registration SM22070 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.87
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 SM22070: Re-Zoning and Official Plan Amendment for 225 Birmingham Street, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 118661 WET 06 OZ at 225 Birmingham St: Rezoning application to create a development consisting of 200 stacked townhouse dwelling units within 12 blocks above a shared underground parking structure, accessed via a private driveway from Birmingham Street. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Re-Zoning and Official Plan Amendment for 225 Birmingham Street, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
- application_address
- 225 BIRMINGHAM ST
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), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3
24 lobbied · 100 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 | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | — | 71% (n=10) | 29% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 3
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | 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 3
37 lobbied · 72 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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 16% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| 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.