Address · Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
72 Perth Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Location
- 43.65609, -79.44842
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alejandra Bravo | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 3 June 2026 |
| Alejandra Bravo | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 18 December 2023 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37698 | Castlepoint Numa | 72 Perth Avenue. | Affordable Housing; Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 1 June 2026 – 1 June 2027 | 1 |
| SM35062 | Castlepoint Developments | 72 Perth Ave | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Applicatio… | 23 November 2023 – 18 June 2024 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 24 January 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 108495 STE 09 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 February 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0199/24TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 8 August 2022Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0892/22TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 15 October 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 226455 STE 09 SAFinal Approval Completed · Approved
- Submitted 1 June 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 170127 STE 18 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 108495 STE 09 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 24 January 2025 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0199/24TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 23 February 2024 | Closed Approved |
| A0892/22TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 August 2022 | Closed Approved |
| 21 226455 STE 09 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 15 October 2021 | Final Approval Completed Approved |
| 18 170127 STE 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 1 June 2018 | 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
72 Perth Ave · Minor variance (MV)
A0199/24TEY · submitted 23 February 2024 · Closed · from registration SM35062 (Castlepoint Developments)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
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 SM35062: Briefing on a proposed committee of adjustment application at 72 Perth Ave (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0199/24TEY at 72 Perth Ave: To alter the development standards for a new rental building (approved under Site Specific Zoning By-law 182-2022, as amended by City Wide By-law 569-2013, and Minor Variance Decision A0892/22TEY) by increasing the building height from 11 to 16 storeys, reducing the ground floor height, increasing … (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Briefing on a proposed committee of adjustment application at 72 Perth Ave
Matched fields
- address
- 72 PERTH AVE
- application_address
- 72 PERTH 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 9
19 lobbied · 28 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 | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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.
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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 9
27 lobbied · 333 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 27 | 169 | 67% (n=27) | 33% | 26% | 29% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 333 | 134 | 95% (n=279) | 5% | 6% | 30% |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
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.
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 9
20 lobbied · 21 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 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.