Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
2699 Keele St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.72495, -79.48133
- 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
Data table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor James Pasternak | Councillor staff | 9 | 2 | 6 July 2020 |
| Ward 6 York Centre | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 6 July 2020 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM29793 | WORSLEY KEELE LIMITED | 2699 Keele Street | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development App… | 20 February 2020 – 29 September 2021 | 10 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 17 December 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 249733 NNY 06 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 23 June 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 159444 NNY 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 February 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 122330 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 249733 NNY 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 December 2021 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 20 159444 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 June 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 122330 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 February 2010 | 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
2699 Keele St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 249733 NNY 06 SA · submitted 17 December 2021 · NOAC Issued · from registration SM29793 (WORSLEY KEELE LIMITED)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM29793: Redevelopment of 2699 Keele Street, Toronto ON, M3M 2E9 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 249733 NNY 06 SA at 2699 Keele St: An application for site plan control approval for a 30-storey mixed-use condominium building, which will comprise 418 dwelling units and 314 square metres of ground floor retail space. The site will be supplied with 349 parking spaces in a 5-level underground parking structure as outlined in the fo… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Redevelopment of 2699 Keele Street, Toronto ON, M3M 2E9
Matched fields
- address
- 2699 KEELE ST
- application_address
- 2699 KEELE ST
2699 Keele St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
20 159444 NNY 06 OZ · submitted 23 June 2020 · Closed · from registration SM29793 (WORSLEY KEELE LIMITED)
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 SM29793: Redevelopment of 2699 Keele Street, Toronto ON, M3M 2E9 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 159444 NNY 06 OZ at 2699 Keele St: Zoning Bylaw Amendment application to permit a 30,800 m2 mixed use condominium complex with an 11-storey midrise building attached to a 24-storey tower by an 8-storey mid-rise building. The complex will comprise 398 dwelling units with 369 parking spaces in a 5-level underground parking structure. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Redevelopment of 2699 Keele Street, Toronto ON, M3M 2E9
Matched fields
- address
- 2699 KEELE ST
- application_address
- 2699 KEELE 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 6
17 lobbied · 41 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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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 6
13 lobbied · 16 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 | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 16 | 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.