Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
60 Mobile Dr
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Location
- 43.72437, -79.32002
- 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
2- Submitted 3 June 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 151703 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 June 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 150765 NNY 16 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 151703 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 3 June 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 150765 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 1 June 2020 | 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
57 Mobile Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
20 151703 NNY 16 OZ · submitted 3 June 2020 · Closed · from registration SM30264 (Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM30264: Communicating with Municipal Officials about OSSTF's Multi-Tenant Commercial Office Development, 57 Mobile Dr. The new sustainable headquarters will be a center for the support of public education, a vibrant environment for staff, members and tenants. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 151703 NNY 16 OZ at 57 Mobile Dr: Lifting the 'Hold' application to permit a new 9,500 square metres office building. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Communicating with Municipal Officials about OSSTF's Multi-Tenant Commercial Office Development, 57 Mobile Dr. The new sustainable headquarters will be a center for the support of public education, a vibrant environment for staff,…
Matched fields
- address
- 57 MOBILE DR
- application_address
- 57 MOBILE DR
59 Mobile Dr · Site Plan Approval (SA)
20 150765 NNY 16 SA · submitted 1 June 2020 · Closed · from registration SM30264 (Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM30264: Communicating with Municipal Officials about OSSTF's Multi-Tenant Commercial Office Development, 57 Mobile Dr. The new sustainable headquarters will be a center for the support of public education, a vibrant environment for staff, members and tenants. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 150765 NNY 16 SA at 59 Mobile Dr: Site Plan application to permit a new 9,500 square metre office building. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Communicating with Municipal Officials about OSSTF's Multi-Tenant Commercial Office Development, 57 Mobile Dr. The new sustainable headquarters will be a center for the support of public education, a vibrant environment for staff,…
Matched fields
- address
- 57 MOBILE DR
- application_address
- 57 MOBILE DR
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 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.
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.