Address · Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
6039 Kingston Road
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
- Location
- 43.78215, -79.16984
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 6032 KINGSTON RD (7 civic numbers away).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM13475 | Namara Developments Ltd. | 6039 Kingston Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 30 October 2009 – 31 December 2011 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 1 May 2013Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 13 160052 ESC 44 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 October 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 283295 ESC 44 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 December 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 198718 ESC 44 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 160052 ESC 44 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 1 May 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 283295 ESC 44 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 October 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 198718 ESC 44 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 21 December 2009 | 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
6039 Kingston Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
10 283295 ESC 44 SA · submitted 22 October 2010 · Closed · from registration SM13475 (Namara Developments Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM13475: Development at 6039 Kingston Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 283295 ESC 44 SA at 6039 Kingston Rd: The development proposal is for a 30 unit townhouse development in two residential blocks. The block at the corner of Kingston Road and Highway No. 2A is to contain 6 residential units while the block fronting Highway No. 2A is to contain 24 residential units. All parking areas are provided as surf… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development at 6039 Kingston Road
Matched fields
- address
- 6039 KINGSTON RD
- application_address
- 6039 KINGSTON RD
6039 Kingston Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
09 198718 ESC 44 OZ · submitted 21 December 2009 · Closed · from registration SM13475 (Namara Developments Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM13475: Development at 6039 Kingston Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 198718 ESC 44 OZ at 6039 Kingston Rd: The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications is to permit 2 3-storey residential apartment building with a total of 30 dwelling units (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development at 6039 Kingston Road
Matched fields
- address
- 6039 KINGSTON RD
- application_address
- 6039 KINGSTON RD
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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 25
4 lobbied · 18 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 18 | 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.
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 25
3 lobbied · 4 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 | 3 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.