Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
6 Elm Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.67470, -79.38057
- 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 15 October 2012 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 15 October 2012 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM18539 | Branksome Hall | 6 Elm Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 15 October 2012 – 1 May 2014 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 24 December 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 281206 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 December 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 281208 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 October 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 252217 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 November 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 314214 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 281206 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 24 December 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 281208 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 December 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 252217 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 October 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 314214 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 November 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
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
2 Elm Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 281206 STE 27 OZ · submitted 24 December 2013 · Closed · from registration SM20546 (Branksome Hall)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM20546: Branksome Hall (Application Nos. 13 281206 STE 27 SA and 13 281206 STE 27 OZ) (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 281206 STE 27 OZ at 2 Elm Ave: To extend the zoning of the campus to abutting properties listed as 120 Mount Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Cres. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Branksome Hall (Application Nos. 13 281206 STE 27 SA and 13 281206 STE 27 OZ)
Matched fields
- file_number
- 13 281206 STE 27 OZ
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
2 Elm Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 281206 STE 27 OZ · submitted 24 December 2013 · Closed · from registration SM20006 (Branksome Hall)
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 SM20006: 1-10 Elm Avenue, 120 Mt. Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Crescent (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 281206 STE 27 OZ at 2 Elm Ave: To extend the zoning of the campus to abutting properties listed as 120 Mount Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Cres. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1-10 Elm Avenue, 120 Mt. Pleasant Road, 20 Meredith Crescent
Matched fields
- address
- 1-10 ELM AVE
- application_address
- 1 ELM AVE
6 Elm Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
13 252217 STE 27 SA · submitted 17 October 2013 · Closed · from registration SM18539 (Branksome Hall)
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 SM18539: #6 Elm Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 252217 STE 27 SA at 6 Elm Ave: Relocation of Electrical transformer in conjunction with 11-314214 STE 27 SA for a redevelopment of the existing dining facility building for the construction of a new dining, athletics and wellness facility complete with two swimming pools, connection to the existing junior school and connection t… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: #6 Elm Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 6 ELM AVE
- application_address
- 6 ELM AVE
6 Elm Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
11 314214 STE 27 SA · submitted 23 November 2011 · Closed · from registration SM18539 (Branksome Hall)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM18539: #6 Elm Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 314214 STE 27 SA at 6 Elm Ave: Redevelopment of the existing dining facility building for the construction of a new dining, athletics and wellness facility complete with two swimming pools, connection to the existing junior school and connection to the existing Mount Pleasant Road pedestrian bridge. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: #6 Elm Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 6 ELM AVE
- application_address
- 6 ELM 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 11
69 lobbied · 60 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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| 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 11
46 lobbied · 113 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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.