Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
26 Birch Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.68101, -79.39249
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 25 BIRCH AVE (1 civic numbers away).
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
5- Submitted 1 September 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 207058 STE 12 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 March 2021Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0031/21TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 5 November 2018Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0099/18TEYClosed · Withdrawn
- Submitted 20 August 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 212287 STE 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 August 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 212297 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 207058 STE 12 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 1 September 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0031/21TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 17 March 2021 | Closed Approved |
| B0099/18TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 5 November 2018 | Closed Withdrawn |
| 18 212287 STE 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 20 August 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 212297 STE 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 August 2018 | 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
26 Birch Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 212287 STE 22 OZ · submitted 20 August 2018 · Closed · from registration SM25589 (North Drive Investments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM25589: Rezoning and Site Plan application for 26-40 Birch Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 212287 STE 22 OZ at 26 Birch Ave: Application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 4-storey (13.4 metres) residential building containing 27 dwelling units. The proposed development provides 1 level of underground parking with 51 parking spaces for residents and 5 parking spaces for visitors. City Council approved the applicaiton… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning and Site Plan application for 26-40 Birch Avenue.
Matched fields
- address
- 26-40 BIRCH AVE
- application_address
- 26 BIRCH AVE
26 Birch Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 212287 STE 22 OZ · submitted 20 August 2018 · Closed · from registration SM25610 (NDI (36 Birch Avenue) Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM25610: Rezoning application for 26-40 Birch Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 212287 STE 22 OZ at 26 Birch Ave: Application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 4-storey (13.4 metres) residential building containing 27 dwelling units. The proposed development provides 1 level of underground parking with 51 parking spaces for residents and 5 parking spaces for visitors. City Council approved the applicaiton… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning application for 26-40 Birch Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 26-40 BIRCH AVE
- application_address
- 26 BIRCH AVE
26 Birch Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 212297 STE 22 SA · submitted 20 August 2018 · Closed · from registration SM25589 (North Drive Investments Inc.)
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 SM25589: Rezoning and Site Plan application for 26-40 Birch Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 212297 STE 22 SA at 26 Birch Ave: Site Plan Control applicaiton to permit a 4-storey (13.4 metres) residential building containing 27 dwelling units. The proposed development provides 1 level of underground parking with 51 parking spaces for residents and 5 parking spaces for visitors.See related Zoning By-law Amendment application… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning and Site Plan application for 26-40 Birch Avenue.
Matched fields
- address
- 26-40 BIRCH AVE
- application_address
- 26 BIRCH AVE
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), Ward 12
5 lobbied · 11 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 11 | 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 | 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.
Committee of Adjustment 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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
Submission to hearing. 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 12
44 lobbied · 60 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 | 44 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 14% | 0.02 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 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.
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 12
32 lobbied · 72 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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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.