Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
31 Pleasant Blvd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.68720, -79.39234
- 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
4- Submitted 19 October 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 227802 STE 12 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 20 August 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 201799 STE 12 SAAppeal Received · In progress
- Submitted 20 December 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 263740 STE 12 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 February 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 118620 STE 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 227802 STE 12 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 19 October 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 201799 STE 12 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 August 2021 | Appeal Received In progress |
| 19 263740 STE 12 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 20 December 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 118620 STE 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 February 2016 | 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
29 Pleasant Blvd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 201799 STE 12 SA · submitted 20 August 2021 · Appeal Received · from registration SM34852 (Pleasant Condos Limited Partnership)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.96
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 SM34852: Planning Rationale in support of Minor Variance & Site Plan Approval applications in connection with redevelopment of 29 to 39 Pleasant Boulevard. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 201799 STE 12 SA at 29 Pleasant Blvd: Site Plan Approval for a 50-storey residential building. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …ning Rationale in support of Minor Variance & Site Plan Approval applications in connection with redevelopment of 29 to 39 Pleasant Boulevard.
Matched fields
- address
- 39 PLEASANT BLVD
- application_address
- 39 PLEASANT BLVD
29 Pleasant Blvd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 201799 STE 12 SA · submitted 20 August 2021 · Appeal Received · from registration SM34853 (Pleasant Condos Limited Partnership)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.96
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 SM34853: Planning Rationale in support of Minor Variance & Site Plan Approval applications in connection with redevelopment of 29 to 39 Pleasant Boulevard. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 201799 STE 12 SA at 29 Pleasant Blvd: Site Plan Approval for a 50-storey residential building. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …ning Rationale in support of Minor Variance & Site Plan Approval applications in connection with redevelopment of 29 to 39 Pleasant Boulevard.
Matched fields
- address
- 39 PLEASANT BLVD
- application_address
- 39 PLEASANT BLVD
29 Pleasant Blvd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
19 263740 STE 12 OZ · submitted 20 December 2019 · Closed · from registration SM32593 (Yonge Pleasant Holdings Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM32593: Application for zoning by-law amendment application for development of 29 Pleasant Boulevard and, potentially, adjacent lots. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 263740 STE 12 OZ at 29 Pleasant Blvd: The City has received an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 32-storey (101.7 metres, plus mechanical penthouse), containing 272 dwelling units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Application for zoning by-law amendment application for development of 29 Pleasant Boulevard and, potentially, adjacent lots.
Matched fields
- address
- 29 PLEASANT BLVD
- application_address
- 29 PLEASANT BLVD
29 Pleasant Blvd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 118620 STE 22 OZ · submitted 19 February 2016 · Closed · from registration SM22952 (College of Chiropractors of Ontario)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
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 SM22952: Development Applications for 29 Pleasant Blvd., Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 118620 STE 22 OZ at 29 Pleasant Blvd: Proposal to amend the Official Plan and amend Zoning By-laws 438-86 and 569-2013 to permit a 7-storey office building designed for the functions of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO). The building will contain a combination of office spaces as well as multi-function meeting rooms. The pr… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development Applications for 29 Pleasant Blvd., Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 29 PLEASANT BLVD
- application_address
- 29 PLEASANT BLVD
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), Ward 12
1 lobbied · 12 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 | 12 | 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 12
32 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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 12
44 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 44 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 14% | 0.02 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| 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.