Address · Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
3050 Pharmacy Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
- Location
- 43.79557, -79.32744
- 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· 6 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 5 | 2 | 23 March 2022 |
| Office of Councillor Karygiannis, Ward 39 | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 26 November 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Karygiannis | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 19 December 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Karygiannis, Ward 22 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 10 December 2018 |
| Office of Councillor Michael Thompson, Ward 21 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 11 December 2020 |
| Office of Councillor Michael Thompson, Ward 21 | Local board | 1 | 0 | 4 January 2021 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM26601 | Hanseatic Holdings Limited | 3050 Pharmacy Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 16 August 2018 – 16 July 2019 | 0 |
| SM26570 | Hanseatic Holdings Limited | 3050 Pharmacy Avenue | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 1 August 2018 – 31 December 2026 | 4 |
| SM26571 | Hanseatic Holdings Limited | 3050 Pharmacy Avenue | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 1 August 2018 – 31 July 2021 | 9 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 25 November 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 253427 ESC 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 December 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 272965 ESC 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 253427 ESC 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 November 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 272965 ESC 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 31 December 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22
7 lobbied · 14 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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 22
6 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
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 | 6 | 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 | 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.