lobbyTO

Address · Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza

4700 Keele St

Registrations naming this address
1
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
0
Applications at this address
25
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
Location
43.77341, -79.50234
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

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

No communications recorded.

All registrations· 1 row
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM14784York University4700 Keele StreetBuilding Permits26 July 2010 – 1 September 20100

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

25
Data table· 25 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
24 171199 WET 07 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)27 June 2024Final Approval Completed
Approved
A0508/23EYK
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)21 December 2023Closed
Approved
22 156452 WET 07 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)3 June 2022Under Review
In progress
21 173802 WET 07 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)21 June 2021Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
20 102537 WET 07 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)8 January 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 264466 WET 07 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)23 December 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 154616 WET 07 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)15 May 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
18 266532 NET 07 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)10 December 2018Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
18 253304 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)7 November 2018Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
B0063/15NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)8 December 2015Approved with Conditions
Approved
15 243039 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)27 October 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
B0050/15NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)27 October 2015Closed
Approved
15 169318 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)5 June 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 107421 NNY 08 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)22 January 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 186422 NNY 08 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)8 July 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 159612 NNY 08 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)21 May 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 159623 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)21 May 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0370/14NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)8 May 2014Tentatively Scheduled
In progress
13 154554 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)22 April 2013Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
12 105325 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)12 January 2012Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
12 104905 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)11 January 2012Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 250146 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)3 August 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
09 191169 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)25 November 2009Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
09 160039 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)19 August 2009Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
08 201649 NNY 08 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)9 September 2008Closed
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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 7

5 lobbied · 28 matched

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 7: 5 lobbied and 28 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied28Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (n=96)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.

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 7

1 lobbied · 17 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 7: 1 lobbied and 17 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied17Hidden: 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 7

7 lobbied · 8 matched

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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 7: 7 lobbied and 8 matched unlobbied applications in 7 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied7Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied8Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (n=70)2%13%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.

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.

Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 7

2 lobbied · 8 matched

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

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied184
  • Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

  • Lobbied79% n=24
  • Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied21%
  • Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied15%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied25%
Data table· 4 rows
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 7: 2 lobbied and 8 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, unlobbied8Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (n=133)12%3%25%

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.

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 7

1 lobbied · 1 matched

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

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide

16 lobbied · 48 matched

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

Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 7: 1 lobbied and 1 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: 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.