Address · Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
3002 Islington Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
- Location
- 43.76011, -79.57222
- 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
5- Submitted 18 August 2021Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 21 200820 WET 07 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 July 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 191632 WET 07 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 February 2017Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 17 116694 WET 07 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 December 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 268771 WET 07 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 December 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 268779 WET 07 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 200820 WET 07 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 18 August 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 191632 WET 07 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 29 July 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 116694 WET 07 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 14 February 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 268771 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 December 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 268779 WET 07 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 December 2015 | 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
3002 Islington Ave · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
17 116694 WET 07 SB · submitted 14 February 2017 · Closed · from registration SM25259 (Cal-Muir Developments Inc.)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.98
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM25259: To discuss recommendation report for City file no's: 15 268779 WET 07 OZ and 17 166694 WET 07 SB Municipal Address: 3002-3014 Islington Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 116694 WET 07 SB at 3002 Islington Ave: This application proposes an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit three (3) development blocks including sic (6) townhouse blocks for a total of forty-six (46) residential units on a new public road via Muir Avenue. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: To discuss recommendation report for City file no's: 15 268779 WET 07 OZ and 17 166694 WET 07 SB Municipal Address: 3002-3014 Islington Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 3002-3014 ISLINGTON AVE
- application_address
- 3002 ISLINGTON AVE
3002 Islington Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 268779 WET 07 OZ · submitted 23 December 2015 · Closed · from registration SM25259 (Cal-Muir Developments Inc.)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM25259: To discuss recommendation report for City file no's: 15 268779 WET 07 OZ and 17 166694 WET 07 SB Municipal Address: 3002-3014 Islington Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 268779 WET 07 OZ at 3002 Islington Ave: This application proposes an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit three (3) development blocks including sic (6) townhouse blocks for a total of forty-six (46) residential units on a new public road via Muir Avenue. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: To discuss recommendation report for City file no's: 15 268779 WET 07 OZ and 17 166694 WET 07 SB Municipal Address: 3002-3014 Islington Avenue
- particulars: To discuss recommendation report for City file no's: 15 268779 WET 07 OZ and 17 166694 WET 07 SB Municipal Address: 3002-3014 Islington Avenue
Matched fields
- file_number
- 15 268779 WET 07 OZ
- address
- 3002-3014 ISLINGTON AVE
- application_address
- 3002 ISLINGTON AVE
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
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), 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 7
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | 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 7
5 lobbied · 28 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 | 5 | 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=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.
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 7
7 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 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.