Address · Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
300 Danforth Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Location
- 43.70146, -79.27111
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 299 DANFORTH RD (1 civic numbers away).
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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 26 April 2012 |
| Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 15 June 2018 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM28121 | Ranka Enterprises Inc | 300 Danforth Road | Affordable Housing; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 1 May 2019 – 30 April 2020 | 0 |
| SM26116 | Ranka Enterprises Inc | 300 Danforth Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 1 May 2018 – 28 February 2019 | 1 |
| SM18050 | Ranca Enterprises Inc. | 300 Danforth Rd | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 24 April 2012 – 29 March 2013 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 11 May 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 157321 ESC 35 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 22 August 2012Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 12 233725 ESC 35 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 April 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 180494 ESC 35 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 February 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 118163 ESC 35 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 157321 ESC 35 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 11 May 2018 | Under Review In progress |
| 12 233725 ESC 35 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 22 August 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 180494 ESC 35 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 April 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 118163 ESC 35 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 1 February 2011 | 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
300 Danforth Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 157321 ESC 35 OZ · submitted 11 May 2018 · Under Review · from registration SM26116 (Ranka Enterprises Inc)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM26116: Planned Real Estate development at 300 Danforth Road, Scarborough (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 157321 ESC 35 OZ at 300 Danforth Rd: INACTIVE The application proposes an amendment to the Former City of Scarborough Warden Woods Community Zoning By-law No. 950-2005, to permit 4 blocks of 4-storey stack townhouses and one 12-storey mixed-use building on the subject property. The proposed development would have total gross floor are… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Planned Real Estate development at 300 Danforth Road, Scarborough
Matched fields
- address
- 300 DANFORTH RD
- application_address
- 300 DANFORTH RD
300 Danforth Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 157321 ESC 35 OZ · submitted 11 May 2018 · Under Review · from registration SM28121 (Ranka Enterprises 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 SM28121: ZBA for planned development at 300 Danforth Road, Scarborough. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 157321 ESC 35 OZ at 300 Danforth Rd: INACTIVE The application proposes an amendment to the Former City of Scarborough Warden Woods Community Zoning By-law No. 950-2005, to permit 4 blocks of 4-storey stack townhouses and one 12-storey mixed-use building on the subject property. The proposed development would have total gross floor are… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: ZBA for planned development at 300 Danforth Road, Scarborough.
Matched fields
- address
- 300 DANFORTH RD
- application_address
- 300 DANFORTH 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 20
13 lobbied · 19 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 | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 19 | 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.
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 20
11 lobbied · 34 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 | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | 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.