Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
4 Overland Dr
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Location
- 43.73289, -79.34786
- 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Burnside | Councillor staff | 2 | 2 | 3 April 2023 |
| Chris Moise | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 22 April 2025 |
| Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 22 April 2025 |
| Rachel Chernos Lin | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 22 April 2025 |
| Shelley Carroll | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 4 April 2025 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM36507 | Akelius Canada Ltd. | 4 Overland Drive | Planning and Development | 4 April 2025 – 1 October 2025 | 4 |
| SM34365 | Akelius Ltd. | 4 Overland Drive | Planning and Development | 3 April 2023 – 23 April 2025 | 1 |
| SM34366 | Akelius Ltd. | 4 Overland Drive. | Planning and Development | 3 April 2023 – 15 October 2025 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 25 November 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 233150 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 December 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 196455 NNY 25 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 December 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 196460 NNY 25 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 233150 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 25 November 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 196455 NNY 25 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 December 2009 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 196460 NNY 25 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 14 December 2009 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
- 150 The Donway West and 4 Overland Drive - Zoning Amendment - Decision Report - Approval2025.NY22.2 · 2 April 2025
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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 16
4 lobbied · 8 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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.
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 16
10 lobbied · 23 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 | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 23 | 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.