Address · Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
296 Broadview Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Location
- 43.66385, -79.35227
- 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 Paula Fletcher, Ward 14 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 28 October 2020 |
| Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 23 October 2020 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM30752 | Broadview Place Limited | 296 Broadview Ave. | Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Heritage | 23 October 2020 – 23 October 2021 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 18 January 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0075/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 November 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5366129Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 23 April 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0539/21TEYClosed · Withdrawn
- Submitted 13 March 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4892695Cancelled · Withdrawn
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0075/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 18 January 2024 | Closed Approved |
| COA-5366129 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 22 November 2023 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| A0539/21TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 23 April 2021 | Closed Withdrawn |
| COA-4892695 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 March 2021 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
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 14
4 lobbied · 69 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 | 69 | 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.