Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
28 Marina Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.59344, -79.53418
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Mark Grimes, Ward 6 | Councillor staff | 5 | 0 | 14 July 2017 |
| Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 18 December 2015 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM21988 | Mantella Corp | 28 Marina Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Plan of … | 26 June 2015 – 28 September 2018 | 7 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 10 September 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 216041 WET 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 September 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 216051 WET 06 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 September 2015Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 15 216054 WET 06 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 216041 WET 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 September 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 216051 WET 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 10 September 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 216054 WET 06 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 10 September 2015 | 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
62 Long Branch Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 216041 WET 06 OZ · submitted 10 September 2015 · Closed · from registration SM21988 (Mantella Corp)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM21988: 62 & 68 Long Branch Avenue and 28 Marina Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 216041 WET 06 OZ at 62 Long Branch Ave: Proposing two blocks of three-storey stacked townhouses containing a total of 28 residential dwelling units consisting of one block of 8 stacked townhouse units fronting Marina Avenue and a second block of 20 stacked townhouse units fronting Long Branch Avenue. Vehicle access to the site would be p… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 62 & 68 Long Branch Avenue and 28 Marina Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 62&68 LONG BRANCH AVE
- application_address
- 62 LONG BRANCH AVE
62 Long Branch Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
15 216051 WET 06 SA · submitted 10 September 2015 · Closed · from registration SM21988 (Mantella Corp)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.90
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 SM21988: 62 & 68 Long Branch Avenue and 28 Marina Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 216051 WET 06 SA at 62 Long Branch Ave: Proposing two blocks of three-storey stacked townhouses containing a total of 28 residential dwelling units consisting of one block of 8 stacked townhouse units fronting Marina Avenue and a second block of 20 stacked townhouse units fronting Long Branch Avenue. Vehicle access to the site would be p… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 62 & 68 Long Branch Avenue and 28 Marina Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 62&68 LONG BRANCH AVE
- application_address
- 62 LONG BRANCH AVE
62 Long Branch Ave · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
15 216054 WET 06 CD · submitted 10 September 2015 · Closed · from registration SM21988 (Mantella Corp)
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 SM21988: 62 & 68 Long Branch Avenue and 28 Marina Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 216054 WET 06 CD at 62 Long Branch Ave: To establish a standard condominium containing 28 stacked townhouse units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 62 & 68 Long Branch Avenue and 28 Marina Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 62&68 LONG BRANCH AVE
- application_address
- 62 LONG BRANCH 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 3
37 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 19% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| 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.
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 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | 1,629 | 70% (n=10) | 30% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.