Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
7 St Thomas St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Location
- 43.66842, -79.39042
- 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
1These 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 Kristyn Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 6 | 0 | 4 November 2013 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 11 September 2013 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM19131 | St Thomas Developments | 7 St. Thomas Street | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 25 March 2013 – 30 September 2014 | 7 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 24 March 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 132208 STE 27 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 December 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 313261 STE 11 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 132208 STE 27 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 24 March 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 313261 STE 11 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 13 December 2010 | 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
3 Sultan St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
10 313261 STE 11 OZ · submitted 13 December 2010 · Closed · from registration SM15753 (St. Thomas Commercial Developments Incorporated)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM15753: Redevelopment of Nos. 1-9 Sultan Street and No. 11 St. Thomas Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 313261 STE 11 OZ at 3 Sultan St: Rezoning application to construct new 9 storey (34 metre high) office building behind designated heritage structures at 1, 3, 5, 9 Sultan Street and 11 St. Thomas Street - 3 levels below grade parking - 60 parking space - Gross floor area r 8,910 sq.m., retail area 84 sq.m.- Site Specific Zoning By… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Redevelopment of Nos. 1-9 Sultan Street and No. 11 St. Thomas Street
Matched fields
- address
- 1-9 SULTAN ST
- application_address
- 1 SULTAN ST
3 Sultan St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
10 313261 STE 11 OZ · submitted 13 December 2010 · Closed · from registration SM16048 (St. Thomas Commercial Developments Incorporated)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM16048: Redevelopment of Nos. 1-9 Sultan Street and No. 11 St. Thomas Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 313261 STE 11 OZ at 3 Sultan St: Rezoning application to construct new 9 storey (34 metre high) office building behind designated heritage structures at 1, 3, 5, 9 Sultan Street and 11 St. Thomas Street - 3 levels below grade parking - 60 parking space - Gross floor area r 8,910 sq.m., retail area 84 sq.m.- Site Specific Zoning By… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Redevelopment of Nos. 1-9 Sultan Street and No. 11 St. Thomas Street
Matched fields
- address
- 1-9 SULTAN ST
- application_address
- 1 SULTAN ST
3 Sultan St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
10 313261 STE 11 OZ · submitted 13 December 2010 · Closed · from registration SM16091 (Lee Developments)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM16091: Planning and development issues related to 1,3,5,9 Sultan St. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 313261 STE 11 OZ at 3 Sultan St: Rezoning application to construct new 9 storey (34 metre high) office building behind designated heritage structures at 1, 3, 5, 9 Sultan Street and 11 St. Thomas Street - 3 levels below grade parking - 60 parking space - Gross floor area r 8,910 sq.m., retail area 84 sq.m.- Site Specific Zoning By… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Planning and development issues related to 1,3,5,9 Sultan St.
Matched fields
- address
- 9 SULTAN ST
- application_address
- 9 SULTAN ST
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 11
4 lobbied · 10 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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 | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 11
69 lobbied · 60 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=10) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 11% | 0.03 |
| 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.