Address · Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
3595 St Clair Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Location
- 43.71654, -79.25681
- 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
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· 10 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amber Morley | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 6 February 2024 |
| Chris Moise | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 6 February 2024 |
| Dianne Saxe | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 6 February 2024 |
| Jennifer McKelvie | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 6 February 2024 |
| Jennifer McKelvie | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 6 February 2024 |
| Josh Matlow | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 6 February 2024 |
| Josh Matlow | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 7 February 2024 |
| Olivia Chow | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 6 February 2024 |
| Parthi Kandavel | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 6 February 2024 |
| Paul Ainslie | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 6 February 2024 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35291 | Republic Developments Inc. | 3595 St. Clair Avenue East | Affordable Housing; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development A… | 6 February 2024 – 26 February 2024 | 10 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 27 April 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 139273 ESC 20 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 27 October 2020Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 20 211336 ESC 20 SBOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 27 October 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 211392 ESC 20 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 139273 ESC 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 April 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 20 211336 ESC 20 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 27 October 2020 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 20 211392 ESC 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 27 October 2020 | OMB Appeal In progress |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
- 3585 and 3595 St. Clair Avenue East, 636 to 646 and 641 to 663 Danforth Road, and 411 and 415 Kennedy Road - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision - Request for Direction2024.CC14.10 · 7 February 2024
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 20
11 lobbied · 34 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 | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 20
1 lobbied · 1 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 | 1 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 20
13 lobbied · 19 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 | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 19 | 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.