Address · Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
2950 Birchmount Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
- Location
- 43.79955, -79.30685
- 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 4 | 2 | 26 October 2021 |
| Councillor Nick Mantas | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 18 February 2021 |
| Nick Mantas | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 24 October 2021 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM32472 | H & W Development Corp. | 2950 Birchmount Rd. | Environment; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Trees | 22 October 2021 – 30 June 2022 | 4 |
| SM31269 | H & W Development Corp. | 2950 Birchmount Rd. | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Applicatio… | 11 February 2021 – 31 December 2024 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 26 October 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 222351 ESC 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 October 2016Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0324/16SCClosed · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 222351 ESC 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 October 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0324/16SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 31 October 2016 | Closed Approved |
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
3600 Finch Ave E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
22 222351 ESC 22 OZ · submitted 26 October 2022 · Closed · from registration SM31269 (H & W Development Corp.)
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 SM31269: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application: 3600 Finch Ave E. & 2950 Birchmount Rd. Site Plan Application Application: 3600 Finch Ave E. & 2950 Birchmount Rd. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 222351 ESC 22 OZ at 3600 Finch Ave E: Rezoning for proposed 12-storey mixed-use building with a total gross floor area of 27,179 square metres. The proposal includes a total of 356 residential units and 3,150 square metres of office and retail space. Total proposed parking is 363 spaces. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application: 3600 Finch Ave E. & 2950 Birchmount Rd. Site Plan Application Application: 3600 Finch Ave E. & 2950 Birchmount Rd.
Matched fields
- address
- 3600 FINCH AVE E
- application_address
- 3600 FINCH AVE E
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 22
6 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 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.
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 22
1 lobbied · 4 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.