Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
301 Park Lawn Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.63504, -79.49246
- 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
1These 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Di Ciano, Ward 5 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 24 July 2018 |
| Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 15 January 2019 |
| Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 8 November 2018 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM26540 | Sanderling Development Limited | 301 Park Lawn Road | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian… | 24 July 2018 – 4 February 2022 | 3 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 17 April 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0161/25EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 11 December 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0662/19EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 28 November 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0866/18EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 261051 WET 05 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0161/25EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 April 2025 | Closed Approved |
| A0662/19EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 11 December 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0866/18EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 28 November 2018 | Closed Approved |
| 18 261051 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 26 November 2018 | 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
301 Park Lawn Rd · Minor variance (MV)
A0866/18EYK · submitted 28 November 2018 · Closed · from registration SM26540 (Sanderling Development Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM26540: 2 storey addition to existing four storey rental apartment building - 301 Park Lawn Road, Etobicoke (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0866/18EYK at 301 Park Lawn Rd: To construct a two-storey addition above the existing apartment building. A total of 14 new dwelling units will be created. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2 storey addition to existing four storey rental apartment building - 301 Park Lawn Road, Etobicoke
Matched fields
- address
- 301 PARK LAWN RD
- application_address
- 301 PARK LAWN RD
301 Park Lawn Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 261051 WET 05 SA · submitted 26 November 2018 · Closed · from registration SM26540 (Sanderling Development Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM26540: 2 storey addition to existing four storey rental apartment building - 301 Park Lawn Road, Etobicoke (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 261051 WET 05 SA at 301 Park Lawn Rd: To construct a two-storey addition above the existing four-storey residential apartment building in order to increase the number of residential units from 25 to 39 units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2 storey addition to existing four storey rental apartment building - 301 Park Lawn Road, Etobicoke
Matched fields
- address
- 301 PARK LAWN RD
- application_address
- 301 PARK LAWN RD
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
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 3
4 lobbied · 265 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 265 | 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 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.