Address · Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
25 Thunder Grv
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
- Location
- 43.80880, -79.26548
- 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
1These 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23476 | Ridgeford Charitable Foundation | 25 Thunder Grove | Affordable Housing; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development A… | 25 August 2016 – 16 August 2019 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 16 March 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 129575 ESC 41 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 June 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 179683 ESC 41 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 129575 ESC 41 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 16 March 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 179683 ESC 41 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 June 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
25 Thunder Grv · Site Plan Approval (SA)
17 129575 ESC 41 SA · submitted 16 March 2017 · Closed · from registration SM23476 (Ridgeford Charitable Foundation)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM23476: Development application from Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, a client of TWC, for their proposal to build 186 new affordable rental units at 25 Thunder Grove, Toronto. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 129575 ESC 41 SA at 25 Thunder Grv: Site Plan Control Application to permit a 12 storey rental apartment building on an existing rental apartment building site containing a 18-storey apartment building. A total of 186 new units and gross floor area of 13,629 square metres is proposed. Upon completion, the site will contain 433 rental… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …n from Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, a client of TWC, for their proposal to build 186 new affordable rental units at 25 Thunder Grove, Toronto.
Matched fields
- address
- 25 THUNDER GRV
- application_address
- 25 THUNDER GRV
25 Thunder Grv · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 179683 ESC 41 OZ · submitted 23 June 2016 · Closed · from registration SM23476 (Ridgeford Charitable Foundation)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.95
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM23476: Development application from Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, a client of TWC, for their proposal to build 186 new affordable rental units at 25 Thunder Grove, Toronto. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 179683 ESC 41 OZ at 25 Thunder Grv: Proposal to permit a 12 storey rental apartment building on an existing rental apartment building site containing a 18-storey apartment building. A total of 186 new units and gross floor area of 13,629 square metres is proposed. Upon completion, the site will contain 433 rental units with 381 parki… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …n from Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, a client of TWC, for their proposal to build 186 new affordable rental units at 25 Thunder Grove, Toronto.
Matched fields
- address
- 25 THUNDER GRV
- application_address
- 25 THUNDER GRV
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 23
2 lobbied · 2 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 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 | 2 | 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 | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (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.
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 23
2 lobbied · 2 matchedHidden: 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 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 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 | 2 | 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 | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (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.