Address · Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
680 Progress Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
- Location
- 43.77749, -79.24894
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 4 December 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 257336 ESC 24 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 19 December 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 277456 ESC 38 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 19 December 2017Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 17 277479 ESC 38 SBUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 257336 ESC 24 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 4 December 2019 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 17 277456 ESC 38 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 December 2017 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 17 277479 ESC 38 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 19 December 2017 | 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
670 Progress Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 277456 ESC 38 OZ · submitted 19 December 2017 · OMB Appeal · from registration SM27086 (Progress Consilium Developments Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
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 SM27086: Assisting with the re-zoning of 670 Progress Avenue. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 277456 ESC 38 OZ at 670 Progress Ave: Fifth Submission: To permit the redevelopment of the lands with seven tall, residential buildings ranging in height from 18 to 54 storeys with a total of 3,203 residential units. The proposed buildings would be spread out over 5 development blocks. A public park and a daycare are also proposed. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Assisting with the re-zoning of 670 Progress Avenue.
Matched fields
- address
- 670 PROGRESS AVE
- application_address
- 670 PROGRESS AVE
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 24
8 lobbied · 7 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 | 8 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 7 | 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.