lobbyTO

Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

661 University Ave

Registrations naming this address
6
4 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
0
Applications at this address
1
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location
43.65945, -79.38955
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

6

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

No communications recorded.

All registrations· 6 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM11427ARE-BJ Holdints No. 1 Inc.661 University Ave.Transit/TTC11 March 2008 – 11 March 20100
SM11047ARE-BJ Holdlings No. 1 Inc661 University Ave.Planning Application Site Plan, Building Permits, Encroachment Agreement11 February 2008 – 15 September 20120
SM11073ARE-BJ Holdings No. 1 Inc.661 University Ave.661 University Ave. Planning Applications, Building Permits, Transit/TTC Applications and related m…11 February 2008 – 31 May 20120
SM11529ARE-BJHoldings No. 1 Inc.661 University Ave.661 University Avenue - Building Permits11 February 2008 – 31 May 20120
SM11530ARE-BJHoldings No. 1 Inc.661 University Ave.661 University Avenue - Transit/TTC11 February 2008 – 11 February 20120
SM11845ARE-BJ Holdlings No. 1 Inc661 University AVe.Transit/TTC11 February 2008 – 15 September 20120

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
B0112/18TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)11 December 2018Closed
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

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.

Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 11

3 lobbied · 25 matched

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

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied184
  • Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

  • Lobbied79% n=24
  • Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied21%
  • Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied15%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied25%
Data table· 4 rows
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 11: 3 lobbied and 25 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied3Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied25Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (n=133)12%3%25%

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.