Address · Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
2657 Midland Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
- Location
- 43.79082, -79.28038
- 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
9- Submitted 6 October 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0341/21SCClosed · Refused
- Submitted 6 October 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0342/21SCClosed · Refused
- Submitted 6 October 2021Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0065/21SCClosed · Refused
- Submitted 14 November 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0289/19SCClosed · Refused
- Submitted 14 November 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0291/19SCClosed · Refused
- Submitted 8 September 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0037/19SCClosed · Refused
- Submitted 11 January 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0014/18SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 July 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0267/17SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 July 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0043/17SCClosed · Approved
Data table· 9 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0341/21SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 6 October 2021 | Closed Refused |
| A0342/21SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 6 October 2021 | Closed Refused |
| B0065/21SC Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 6 October 2021 | Closed Refused |
| A0289/19SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 14 November 2019 | Closed Refused |
| A0291/19SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 14 November 2019 | Closed Refused |
| B0037/19SC Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 8 September 2019 | Closed Refused |
| A0014/18SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 11 January 2018 | Closed Approved |
| A0267/17SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 July 2017 | Closed Approved |
| B0043/17SC Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 21 July 2017 | Closed Approved |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 23
3 lobbied · 32 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 32 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
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.
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), Ward 23
4 lobbied · 13 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.