Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
327 Royal York Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.61651, -79.49819
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amber Morley | Councillor staff | 8 | 5 | 8 May 2023 |
| Amber Morley | Member of council | 8 | 5 | 8 May 2023 |
| Ward 3 Etobicoke - Lakeshore, Mark Grimes | Councillor staff | 3 | 3 | 18 April 2019 |
| Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 6 November 2017 |
| Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mark Grimes | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 18 April 2019 |
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 7 September 2016 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM26938 | VANDYK group of companies | 327 Royal York Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 31 October 2018 – 31 December 2021 | 0 |
| SM25138 | VANDYK group of companies | 327 Royal York Road | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 6 October 2017 – 31 July 2024 | 22 |
| SM23510 | Stanton Renaissance | 327 Royal York Road | Environment | 7 September 2016 – 31 December 2017 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
7- Submitted 3 July 2026Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0019/26EYKAccepted · In progress
- Submitted 23 April 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 147830 WET 03 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 April 2025Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 25 147885 WET 03 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 27 April 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 138783 WET 03 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 7 October 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 232985 WET 03 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 December 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 232369 WET 06 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 December 2008Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 08 232382 WET 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 7 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0019/26EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 3 July 2026 | Accepted In progress |
| 25 147830 WET 03 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 April 2025 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 25 147885 WET 03 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 April 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| 23 138783 WET 03 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 April 2023 | Under Review In progress |
| 19 232985 WET 03 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 October 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 232369 WET 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 31 December 2008 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 232382 WET 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 31 December 2008 | 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
327 Royal York Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
19 232985 WET 03 OZ · submitted 7 October 2019 · Closed · from registration SM26938 (VANDYK group of companies)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM26938: Development Application and Zoning Application for 327 Royal York Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 232985 WET 03 OZ at 327 Royal York Rd: An application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a transit-oriented development (TOD) integrated with the Mimico GO Station for 315 Royal York Road (Metrolinx lands) and 327 Royal York Road (Vandyk lands). The proposal includes two residential towers with heights of 34 and 35-storeys on a 4 to 8… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development Application and Zoning Application for 327 Royal York Road
Matched fields
- address
- 327 ROYAL YORK RD
- application_address
- 327 ROYAL YORK 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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 3
37 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 19% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| 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.
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.