Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
77 Dunfield Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.70677, -79.39494
- 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· 12 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Matlow, Ward 22 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 7 August 2014 |
| Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 21 St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 22 St. Paul's | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 7 August 2014 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
| Ward 32 Beaches-East York | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2016 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM19538 | Shiplake Management Company | 77 Dunfield Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 19 July 2013 – 30 December 2016 | 12 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 20 May 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 159051 STE 22 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 November 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 271686 STE 22 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 159051 STE 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 May 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 271686 STE 22 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 28 November 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
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
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 12
32 lobbied · 72 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | 511 | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.
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 12
44 lobbied · 60 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 44 | 1,925 | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 14% | 0.02 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 60 | 1,799 | 100% (n=9) | 0% | 10% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.