Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
30 Fieldway Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.64229, -79.52828
- 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
3These 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 4 | 2 | 4 April 2013 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM19169 | Peppergreen Developments Inc. | 30 Fieldway Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 2 April 2013 – 2 April 2015 | 1 |
| SM17368 | Martin Donnelly | 30 Fieldway Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 26 October 2011 – 25 September 2012 | 2 |
| SM17340 | 505806 Ontario Inc. (Limited) and 2090912 Ontario Inc. (Limited) | 30 Fieldway Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 19 October 2011 – 19 October 2012 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 8 July 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 187168 WET 05 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 September 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 233677 WET 05 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 September 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 233685 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 187168 WET 05 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 8 July 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 233677 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 11 September 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 233685 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 11 September 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
30 Fieldway Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 233677 WET 05 OZ · submitted 11 September 2013 · Closed · from registration SM18611 (North Star Homes Inc)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
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 SM18611: Proposed residential redevelopment 26-30 Fieldway Rd (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 233677 WET 05 OZ at 30 Fieldway Rd: Proposed amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of a six block, 4-storey stacked townhouse development containing 148 units. The development would have 152 space single level underground parking garage. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed residential redevelopment 26-30 Fieldway Rd
Matched fields
- address
- 26-30 FIELDWAY RD
- application_address
- 30 FIELDWAY RD
30 Fieldway Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
13 233685 WET 05 SA · submitted 11 September 2013 · Closed · from registration SM18611 (North Star Homes Inc)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM18611: Proposed residential redevelopment 26-30 Fieldway Rd (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 233685 WET 05 SA at 30 Fieldway Rd: To permit the development of a six block, 4-storey stacked townhouse development containing 148 units. The development would have 152 parkings spaces within a single level underground parking garage. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed residential redevelopment 26-30 Fieldway Rd
Matched fields
- address
- 26-30 FIELDWAY RD
- application_address
- 30 FIELDWAY RD
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
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 3
37 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 19% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | 1,629 | 70% (n=10) | 30% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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.