Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
620 Avenue Rd.
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.69009, -79.40231
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 619 AVENUE RD (1 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
4These 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 3 | 2 | 17 April 2018 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23654 | The Preston Group | 620 Avenue Rd. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 27 October 2016 – 27 October 2018 | 1 |
| SM17557 | Minto Urban Communities | 620 Avenue Road | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 1 January 2011 – 31 December 2013 | 0 |
| SM11554 | M215 Lonsdale Inc. | 620 Avenue Road | Planning and Development - Planning Application: Official Plan Amendment; Zoning By-law Amendment; … | 15 April 2008 – 30 April 2014 | 2 |
| SM11404 | MintoUrban Communities Inc. | 620 Avenue Road | Planning Application, Official Plan, Zoning by-law, Site Plan | 17 March 2008 – 17 March 2010 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 31 May 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 169199 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 November 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1319/17TEYClosed · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 169199 STE 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 31 May 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A1319/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 28 November 2017 | Closed Approved |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 12
32 lobbied · 72 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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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 12
20 lobbied · 357 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 20 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.