Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
29 Judson St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.61533, -79.49948
- 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
2These 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· 7 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 17 November 2015 |
| Building | City staff | 1 | 1 | 17 November 2015 |
| Etobicoke Planning | City staff | 1 | 1 | 29 November 2013 |
| Municipal Licensing | City staff | 1 | 1 | 29 November 2013 |
| Planning Etobicoke | City staff | 1 | 1 | 17 November 2015 |
| Mark Grimes | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 29 November 2013 |
| Ward 2 Etobicoke North | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 29 November 2013 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22237 | ML Ready Mix Concrete | 29 Judson Street | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application, Minor Vari… | 17 September 2015 – 7 May 2020 | 4 |
| SM19897 | ML Ready Mix Concrete | 29 Judson Street | Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance | 29 November 2013 – 28 February 2014 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 24 February 2015Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0011/15EYKClosed · Refused
- Submitted 21 February 2014Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0099/14EYKClosed · Refused
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0011/15EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 24 February 2015 | Closed Refused |
| A0099/14EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 February 2014 | Closed Refused |
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.
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.
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 3
4 lobbied · 265 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 265 | 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.