Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
4 Avenue Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.66938, -79.39485
- 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
2These 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· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor's office | Councillor staff | 3 | 2 | 28 November 2017 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 14 April 2016 |
| Deputy City Manager's Office | City staff | 2 | 2 | 24 July 2017 |
| Deputy City Managers Office | City staff | 1 | 1 | 24 July 2017 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23000 | Oxford Properties | 4 Avenue Rd. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 14 April 2016 – 14 October 2019 | 1 |
| SM22710 | OPGI Management GP Inc. | 4 Avenue Road | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 26 January 2016 – 12 July 2022 | 8 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 16 January 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0035/17TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 2 August 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 200185 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0035/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 16 January 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 16 200185 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 2 August 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
4 Avenue Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 200185 STE 20 SA · submitted 2 August 2016 · Closed · from registration SM22710 (OPGI Management GP Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM22710: Development application for the Park Hyatt, 4 Avenue Road Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5R 2E8 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 200185 STE 20 SA at 4 Avenue Rd: Site Plan Approval for renovations to an existing hotel and office/retail building. The proposal includes conversion of a portion of the building to residential use. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development application for the Park Hyatt, 4 Avenue Road Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5R 2E8
Matched fields
- address
- 4 AVENUE RD
- application_address
- 4 AVENUE 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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 11
16 lobbied · 354 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 354 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (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.
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.