Address · Ward 4 · Gord Perks
66 Baby Point Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 4 · Gord Perks
- Location
- 43.65718, -79.49470
- 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
2These 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 Doucette, Ward 13 | Councillor staff | 3 | 3 | 9 June 2011 |
| Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park | Member of council | 3 | 2 | 8 June 2011 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM14277 | Lorne Bozinoff | 66 Baby Point Road | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 29 March 2010 – 31 December 2013 | 6 |
| SM14177 | David Ceolin | 66 Baby Point Road | Planning and Development Site Plan Application | 4 March 2010 – 1 September 2010 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 29 January 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 105613 WET 13 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09 105613 WET 13 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 29 January 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
66 Baby Point Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
09 105613 WET 13 SA · submitted 29 January 2009 · Closed · from registration SM14177 (David Ceolin)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
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 SM14177: 66 Baby Point Road - Site Plan Application. I have been reatained by neighbours opposing the application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 105613 WET 13 SA at 66 Baby Point Rd: To demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new 3-storey single- family dwelling with attached 2 car garage. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 66 Baby Point Road - Site Plan Application. I have been reatained by neighbours opposing the application
Matched fields
- address
- 66 BABY POINT RD
- application_address
- 66 BABY POINT RD
66 Baby Point Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
09 105613 WET 13 SA · submitted 29 January 2009 · Closed · from registration SM14277 (Lorne Bozinoff)
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 SM14277: Site Plan Control Application - 66 Baby Point Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 105613 WET 13 SA at 66 Baby Point Rd: To demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new 3-storey single- family dwelling with attached 2 car garage. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site Plan Control Application - 66 Baby Point Road
Matched fields
- address
- 66 BABY POINT RD
- application_address
- 66 BABY POINT 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 4
17 lobbied · 33 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 33 | 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=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.