Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
2995 Keele St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.73626, -79.48349
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
22- Submitted 29 June 2021Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 21 177570 NNY 06 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 June 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 177574 NNY 06 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 June 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 177578 NNY 06 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 June 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 176279 NNY 06 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 July 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0373/20NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 11 December 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0754/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 10 December 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4693990Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 21 December 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0872/18NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 19 October 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 245467 NNY 06 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 December 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4294576Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 20 April 2017Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 17 146431 NNY 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 April 2017Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 17 144266 NNY 09 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 March 2017Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 17 127699 NNY 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 December 2016Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 16 264018 NNY 09 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 2 November 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 245898 NNY 09 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 April 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 146577 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 March 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 131286 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 25 February 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 121340 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 February 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 117649 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 February 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 117666 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 February 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 117669 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 December 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 280352 NNY 09 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 22 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 177570 NNY 06 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 29 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 177574 NNY 06 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 29 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 177578 NNY 06 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 29 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 176279 NNY 06 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0373/20NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 16 July 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A0754/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 11 December 2019 | Closed Approved |
| COA-4693990 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 10 December 2019 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| A0872/18NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 December 2018 | Closed Approved |
| 18 245467 NNY 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 October 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| COA-4294576 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 11 December 2017 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 17 146431 NNY 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 20 April 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 144266 NNY 09 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 13 April 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 127699 NNY 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 10 March 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 264018 NNY 09 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 13 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 245898 NNY 09 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 2 November 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 146577 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 April 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 131286 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 March 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 121340 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 February 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 117649 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 February 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 117666 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 February 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 117669 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 February 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 280352 NNY 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 December 2013 | 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
100 C Stanley Greene Blvd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 245467 NNY 06 SA · submitted 19 October 2018 · Closed · from registration SM30803 (Downsview Homes Inc.)
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 SM30803: Development applications and related approvals for 155 Downsview Park Boulevard and 72 Stanley Greene Boulevard (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 245467 NNY 06 SA at 100 C Stanley Greene Blvd: 1- four storey, apartment building containing 42 stacked townhouse dwelling units with one level of underground parking and 6 blocks of 3-storey townhouses consisting of 38 dwelling units, for a total of 80 dwelling units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development applications and related approvals for 155 Downsview Park Boulevard and 72 Stanley Greene Boulevard
Matched fields
- address
- 72 STANLEY GREENE BLVD
- application_address
- 72 STANLEY GREENE BLVD
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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), Ward 6
2 lobbied · 2 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 2 | 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 | 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.
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 6
2 lobbied · 14 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | 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.
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.