Address · Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
309 Cherry St.
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Location
- 43.64651, -79.35330
- How this address was located
- Located from the coordinates or ward published with the application.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ausma Malik | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 16 June 2026 |
| Ausma Malik | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 16 June 2026 |
| Olivia Chow | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 26 June 2024 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35234 | Castlepoint Numa | 309 Cherry St. | Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Transportation - Metro… | 18 January 2024 – 31 December 2026 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 5 November 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 234718 STE 14 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 30 December 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 271912 STE 30 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 5 March 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 131809 STE 30 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 234718 STE 14 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 5 November 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 16 271912 STE 30 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 December 2016 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 12 131809 STE 30 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 March 2012 | OMB Appeal In progress |
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.
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· 2 rows
| 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 14
18 lobbied · 28 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 | 18 | 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 | 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.