lobbyTO

Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin

66 Broadway Ave

Registrations naming this address
1
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
5
4 offices contacted
Applications at this address
1
1 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Location
43.71066, -79.39548
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

Registrations that mention this address

1

These 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

  • Councillor Robinson2
  • Councillor Justin Di Ciano1
  • Councillor Justin DiCiano1
  • Ward 25 Don Valley West1
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Councillor RobinsonCouncillor staff2011 May 2017
Councillor Justin Di CianoCouncillor staff1023 May 2017
Councillor Justin DiCianoCouncillor staff1023 May 2017
Ward 25 Don Valley WestMember of council109 May 2017
All registrations· 1 row
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM24242Beaux Properties International Inc.66 Broadway AvenuePlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan24 March 2017 – 25 May 20205

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
16 270243 NNY 25 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)22 December 2016Closed
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

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 15

12 lobbied · 41 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 15: 12 lobbied and 41 matched unlobbied applications in 10 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied12Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied41Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.