Address · Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
3 Buller Ave
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 19 · Brad Bradford
- Location
- 43.66671, -79.30410
- 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22660 | Rike Burkhardt | 3 Buller Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 13 January 2016 – 13 July 2016 | 0 |
| SM11224 | Greylane Holdings Inc. | 3 Buller Avenue | Planning Application - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval, Commit… | 11 February 2008 – 22 July 2011 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 30 June 2023Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 23 168340 STE 19 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 March 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 128941 STE 19 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 31 March 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 128942 STE 19 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 October 2018Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 18 250143 STE 32 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 April 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 153946 STE 32 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 April 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 153955 STE 32 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 168340 STE 19 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 June 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 22 128941 STE 19 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 31 March 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 22 128942 STE 19 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 31 March 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 250143 STE 32 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 30 October 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 153946 STE 32 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 April 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 153955 STE 32 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 April 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
73 Woodbine Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
13 153955 STE 32 SA · submitted 19 April 2013 · Closed · from registration SM22660 (Rike Burkhardt)
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 SM22660: Zoning and site plan application to permit a townhouse redevelopment at 73-83 Woodbine Avenue and 3 Buller Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 153955 STE 32 SA at 73 Woodbine Ave: Site plan application to permit 11 town houses in two buildings. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Zoning and site plan application to permit a townhouse redevelopment at 73-83 Woodbine Avenue and 3 Buller Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 73-83 WOODBINE AVE
- application_address
- 73 WOODBINE 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 19
7 lobbied · 10 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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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.
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 19
6 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 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 | 28 | 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=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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), Ward 19
1 lobbied · 1 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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.