lobbyTO

Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak

36R Tippett Road

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page
Registrations naming this address
1
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
2
2 offices contacted
Applications at this address
3
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 6 · James Pasternak
Location
43.73299, -79.44824
How this address was located
Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 30 TIPPETT RD (6 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

Registrations that mention this address

1

These 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

  • Office of Councillor Pasternak, Ward 101
  • Ward 10 York Centre1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Pasternak, Ward 10Councillor staff1123 July 2018
Ward 10 York CentreMember of council1123 July 2018
All registrations· 1 row
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM26529Tippett South Inc.36R Tippett RoadPlanning and Development, Combined Application23 July 2018 – 4 October 20212

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

3
Data table· 3 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
19 157821 NNY 06 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)22 May 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0592/18NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)9 August 2018Closed
Approved
11 312374 NNY 10 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)18 November 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)

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 Condominium (CD), Ward 6

2 lobbied · 2 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 6: 2 lobbied and 2 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—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.

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.

Minor variance (MV), Ward 6

2 lobbied · 14 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied126
  • Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

  • Lobbied75% n=154
  • Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied43%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%
Data table· 4 rows
Minor variance (MV), Ward 6: 2 lobbied and 14 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied14Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (n=3,058)9%4%27%

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 6

13 lobbied · 16 matched

Hidden: 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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 6: 13 lobbied and 16 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.