lobbyTO

Address · Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata

25 Photography Dr

Registrations naming this address
8
2 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
104
12 offices contacted
Applications at this address
4
8 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
Location
43.68677, -79.48377
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

8

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

  • Office of Councillor Frances Nunziata40
  • Ward 5 York South-Weston20
  • Office of Councillor Nunziata11
  • Economic Development & Culture8
  • Office of Frances Nunziata Ward 56
  • Office of the Mayor4
  • Frances Nunziata4
  • Create TO3
Data table· 12 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Frances NunziataCouncillor staff4093 November 2021
Ward 5 York South-WestonMember of council20133 November 2021
Office of Councillor NunziataCouncillor staff11628 January 2021
Economic Development & CultureCity staff8429 January 2021
Office of Frances Nunziata Ward 5Councillor staff626 August 2021
Office of the MayorCouncillor staff4324 February 2021
Frances NunziataMember of council434 June 2025
Create TOLocal board338 February 2023
MayorMember of council3312 February 2021
Office of Councillor Gary Crawford (Ward 20)Councillor staff2010 March 2021
Frances NunziataCouncillor staff205 June 2025
CreateTOLocal board1130 April 2024
All registrations· 8 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM36497CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited25 Photography DrivePlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop…31 March 2025 – 7 April 20263
SM36481CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited25 Photography DrivePlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop…25 March 2025 – 25 March 20270
SM34171Choice Properties25 Photography DrivePlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Applicatio…6 February 2023 – 31 December 20267
SM31130Choice Properties25 Photography DrivePlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…15 January 2021 – 20 June 202221
SM31122Choice Properties25 Photography Drive.Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…14 January 2021 – 20 July 20212
SM31068Choice Properties25 Photography Drive.Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…5 January 2021 – 5 January 20237
SM31000Choice Properties25 Photography Drive.Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…16 December 2020 – 20 June 202252
SM31001Choice Properties25 Photography Drive.Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…16 December 2020 – 20 June 202212

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

4
Data table· 4 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
21 186124 WET 05 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)19 July 2021Under Review
In progress
21 186137 WET 05 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)19 July 2021Under Review
In progress
10 317380 WET 12 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)20 December 2010Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
10 317381 WET 12 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)20 December 2010Closed
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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 5

12 lobbied · 17 matched

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

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

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 5: 12 lobbied and 17 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied12Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (n=70)2%13%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.

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 5

1 lobbied · 1 matched

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

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide

16 lobbied · 48 matched

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

Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 5: 1 lobbied and 1 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: 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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 5

15 lobbied · 40 matched

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 5: 15 lobbied and 40 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied15Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied40Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (n=96)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.