Address · Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
611 Keele St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
- Location
- 43.67205, -79.46704
- 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
3These 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frances Nunziata | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 16 October 2023 |
| Councillor Nunziata | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 16 February 2018 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM34611 | Diamond Corp | 611 Keele St | Planning and Development; Combined Application | 4 July 2023 – 31 December 2026 | 2 |
| SM25656 | Fieldgate Homes | 611 Keele Street. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 12 February 2018 – 13 August 2026 | 1 |
| SM14184 | Astral Media Outdoor, L.P. | 611 Keele St | Signs` | 8 March 2010 – 31 August 2010 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 18 December 2024Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 24 251760 WET 05 OZCouncil Approved · Approved
- Submitted 22 July 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 180536 WET 05 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 22 July 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 180538 WET 05 OZCouncil Approved · Approved
- Submitted 4 August 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0296/20EYKTLAB Appeal · Refused
- Submitted 26 August 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 211950 WET 05 SAUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 251760 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 18 December 2024 | Council Approved Approved |
| 22 180536 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 July 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 22 180538 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 July 2022 | Council Approved Approved |
| A0296/20EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 4 August 2020 | TLAB Appeal Refused |
| 19 211950 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 26 August 2019 | 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
611 Keele St · Minor variance (MV)
A0296/20EYK · submitted 4 August 2020 · TLAB Appeal · from registration SM31029 (Talus Capital Corp.)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.90
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 SM31029: Site Plan and Minor Variance Applications for the Redevelopment of 611 - 623 Keele Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0296/20EYK at 611 Keele St: To construct a new self-storage facility. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site Plan and Minor Variance Applications for the Redevelopment of 611 - 623 Keele Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 611-623 KEELE ST
- application_address
- 611 KEELE ST
611 Keele St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 211950 WET 05 SA · submitted 26 August 2019 · Under Review · from registration SM31029 (Talus Capital Corp.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.89
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 SM31029: Site Plan and Minor Variance Applications for the Redevelopment of 611 - 623 Keele Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 211950 WET 05 SA at 611 Keele St: INACTIVE Proposal for a 5-storey self-storage facility with 67.4 square metres of retail proposed at-grade at the corner of St. Clair Avenue and Keele Street. The building would have a gross floor area of 8228.9 square metres with 8 parking spaces provided within the building, accessed from Keele S… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site Plan and Minor Variance Applications for the Redevelopment of 611 - 623 Keele Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 611-623 KEELE ST
- application_address
- 611 KEELE ST
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 5
12 lobbied · 17 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 | 12 | 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 | 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 5
15 lobbied · 40 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 | 15 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 40 | 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.
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 5
8 lobbied · 137 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 | 8 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 137 | 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.