Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
34 Hazelton Avenue
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.67186, -79.39381
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 36 HAZELTON AVE (2 civic numbers away).
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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM13087 | Zinc Construction Inc. | 34 Hazelton Avenue | Planning and Development, Heritage | 21 May 2009 – 20 May 2010 | 0 |
| SM12915 | Zinc Construction Inc. | 34 Hazelton Avenue | Planning Act Application - Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval | 8 April 2009 – 1 January 2010 | 0 |
| SM11270 | Zinc Construction Inc. | 34 Hazelton Avenue | Planning Act Application - Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval | 28 February 2008 – 22 July 2011 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 10 April 2015Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 15 139193 STE 27 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 12 November 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 295984 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 June 2008Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 08 169177 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 139193 STE 27 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 10 April 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 295984 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 12 November 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 169177 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 11 June 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
34 Hazelton Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
08 169177 STE 27 OZ · submitted 11 June 2008 · Closed · from registration SM12338 (Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 576)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM12338: To discuss proposed development at 34-38 Hazelton Ave. Planning Application No. 08 169177 STE 27 OZ - Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 169177 STE 27 OZ at 34 Hazelton Ave: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendent to permit the construction of an 8 storey condominium with 38 residential units and 3 levels of below grade parking. At the TEYCC meeting of April 21st, an alternative proposal for a 7 storey, 32 unit condominium was presented before Council by the… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: To discuss proposed development at 34-38 Hazelton Ave. Planning Application No. 08 169177 STE 27 OZ - Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
- particulars: To discuss proposed development at 34-38 Hazelton Ave. Planning Application No. 08 169177 STE 27 OZ - Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Matched fields
- file_number
- 08 169177 STE 27 OZ
- address
- 34-38 HAZELTON AVE
- application_address
- 34 HAZELTON AVE
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
34 Hazelton Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
08 169177 STE 27 OZ · submitted 11 June 2008 · Closed · from registration SM12915 (Zinc Construction Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.71
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 SM12915: 34 Hazelton Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 169177 STE 27 OZ at 34 Hazelton Ave: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendent to permit the construction of an 8 storey condominium with 38 residential units and 3 levels of below grade parking. At the TEYCC meeting of April 21st, an alternative proposal for a 7 storey, 32 unit condominium was presented before Council by the… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 34 Hazelton Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 34 HAZELTON AVE
- application_address
- 34 HAZELTON AVE
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 Condominium (CD), Ward 11
4 lobbied · 10 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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 | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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 11
46 lobbied · 113 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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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 11
69 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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| 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.