Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
4 The Donway E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Location
- 43.73305, -79.34084
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 28 April 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 139212 NNY 16 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 8 October 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 223792 NNY 16 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 8 October 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 223797 NNY 16 SBUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 139212 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 28 April 2023 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 223792 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 8 October 2021 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 21 223797 NNY 16 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 8 October 2021 | Under Review In progress |
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
1053 Don Mills Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
21 223792 NNY 16 OZ · submitted 8 October 2021 · OMB Appeal · from registration SM34126 (Resident)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
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 SM34126: 2,4,6 the Donway East and 1053 Don Mills Road - Proposed Redevelopment (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 223792 NNY 16 OZ at 1053 Don Mills Rd: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit four residential buildings ranging in height from 12 to 29 storeys. The proposal also includes a new public park and a new public street. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2,4,6 the Donway East and 1053 Don Mills Road - Proposed Redevelopment
Matched fields
- address
- 1053 DON MILLS RD
- application_address
- 1053 DON MILLS RD
1053 Don Mills Rd · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
21 223797 NNY 16 SB · submitted 8 October 2021 · Under Review · from registration SM34126 (Resident)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM34126: 2,4,6 the Donway East and 1053 Don Mills Road - Proposed Redevelopment (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 223797 NNY 16 SB at 1053 Don Mills Rd: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit four residential buildings ranging in height from 12 to 29 storeys. The proposal also includes a new public park and a new public street. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2,4,6 the Donway East and 1053 Don Mills Road - Proposed Redevelopment
Matched fields
- address
- 1053 DON MILLS RD
- application_address
- 1053 DON MILLS RD
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.
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.
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 16
2 lobbied · 4 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.