Address · Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
4700 Keele St
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
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
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
1These 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
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM14784 | York University | 4700 Keele Street | Building Permits | 26 July 2010 – 1 September 2010 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
25- Submitted 27 June 2024Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 24 171199 WET 07 SAFinal Approval Completed · Approved
- Submitted 21 December 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0508/23EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 3 June 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 156452 WET 07 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 21 June 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 173802 WET 07 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 January 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 102537 WET 07 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 December 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 264466 WET 07 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 15 May 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 154616 WET 07 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 December 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 266532 NET 07 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 November 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 253304 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 December 2015Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0063/15NYApproved with Conditions · Approved
- Submitted 27 October 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 243039 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 October 2015Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0050/15NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 5 June 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 169318 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 January 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 107421 NNY 08 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 July 2014Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 14 186422 NNY 08 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 May 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 159612 NNY 08 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 May 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 159623 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 May 2014Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0370/14NYTentatively Scheduled · In progress
- Submitted 22 April 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 154554 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 12 January 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 105325 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 January 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 104905 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 August 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 250146 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 25 November 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 191169 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 August 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 160039 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 September 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 201649 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 25 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 171199 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 June 2024 | Final Approval Completed Approved |
| A0508/23EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 21 December 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 22 156452 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 June 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 173802 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 102537 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 8 January 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 264466 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 December 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 154616 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 15 May 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 266532 NET 07 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 December 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 253304 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 7 November 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0063/15NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 8 December 2015 | Approved with Conditions Approved |
| 15 243039 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 October 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0050/15NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 27 October 2015 | Closed Approved |
| 15 169318 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 5 June 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 107421 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 January 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 186422 NNY 08 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 8 July 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 159612 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 21 May 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 159623 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 May 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0370/14NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 May 2014 | Tentatively Scheduled In progress |
| 13 154554 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 April 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 105325 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 12 January 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 104905 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 11 January 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 250146 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 August 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 191169 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 November 2009 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 160039 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 August 2009 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 201649 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 September 2008 | 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
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 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (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 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 17 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 7
7 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
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 7 | 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 | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (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 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 2 | 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 | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (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 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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.