Address · Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
51 Drewry Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Location
- 43.78637, -79.41982
- 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
Data table· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 23 Willowdale | Member of council | 47 | 18 | 8 August 2014 |
| John Filion | Councillor staff | 19 | 0 | 12 April 2022 |
| Ward 18 Willowdale | Member of council | 18 | 1 | 12 April 2022 |
| Office of Councillor John Filion, Ward 18 | Councillor staff | 4 | 1 | 13 June 2019 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM14067 | Davies Howe Partners | 51 Drewry Avenue | Planning and Development, Combined Application - Official Plan, Zoning By-law, Site Plan | 29 January 2010 – 31 December 2026 | 88 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 10 April 2008Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 08 145788 NNY 23 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 10 April 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 145795 NNY 23 SAUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08 145788 NNY 23 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 April 2008 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 08 145795 NNY 23 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 10 April 2008 | 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
18 Inez Crt · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
08 145788 NNY 23 OZ · submitted 10 April 2008 · OMB Appeal · from registration SM14067 (Davies Howe Partners)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM14067: All necessary approvals for development of properties municipally known as 51 Drewry Avenue and 18-28 Inez Court (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 145788 NNY 23 OZ at 18 Inez Crt: Revised submission implements modifications to the applications that were endorsed in principle by City Council during the spring and summer of 2014 in settlement of an outstanding Ontario Municipal Board (now Ontario Land Tribunal) appeals. The revised submission proposes two towers of 10 and 32-s… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: All necessary approvals for development of properties municipally known as 51 Drewry Avenue and 18-28 Inez Court
Matched fields
- address
- 51 DREWRY AVE
- application_address
- 51 DREWRY AVE
51 Drewry Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
08 145795 NNY 23 SA · submitted 10 April 2008 · Under Review · from registration SM14067 (Davies Howe Partners)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM14067: All necessary approvals for development of properties municipally known as 51 Drewry Avenue and 18-28 Inez Court (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 145795 NNY 23 SA at 51 Drewry Ave: Official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan application to finalize an LPAT settlement for a 10-storey and 32-storey residential buildings connected by a 2-storey podium with 551 residential units and an FSI of 2.29. A new public road and a parkland dedication of 7,535.4 square … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: All necessary approvals for development of properties municipally known as 51 Drewry Avenue and 18-28 Inez Court
Matched fields
- address
- 51 DREWRY AVE
- application_address
- 51 DREWRY AVE
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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 18
37 lobbied · 63 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=8) | 0% | 24% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 63 | — | 64% (n=5) | 36% | 16% | 0.04 |
| 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 18
18 lobbied · 125 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 | 18 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 125 | 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.