Address · Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
82 Buttonwood Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
- Location
- 43.68984, -79.50938
- 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 11 York South-Weston | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 21 November 2016 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23328 | West Park Healthcare Centre | 82 Buttonwood Ave. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 8 July 2016 – 28 September 2022 | 1 |
| SM10432 | West Park Healthcare Centre | 82 Buttonwood Avenue | Planning Act Applications: Zoning Bylaw | 13 February 2008 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
8- Submitted 18 March 2026Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0104/26EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 19 February 2025Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 25 118470 WET 05 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 17 October 2024Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 24 227343 WET 05 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 July 2016Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 16 190083 WET 11 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 February 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 121271 WET 11 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 February 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 121285 WET 11 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 23 April 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 162435 WET 11 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 December 2008Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 08 231505 WET 11 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 8 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0104/26EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 18 March 2026 | Closed Approved |
| 25 118470 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 February 2025 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 24 227343 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 17 October 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 190083 WET 11 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 13 July 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 121271 WET 11 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 February 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 121285 WET 11 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 26 February 2016 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 10 162435 WET 11 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 April 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 231505 WET 11 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 December 2008 | 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
82 Buttonwood Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 121271 WET 11 OZ · submitted 26 February 2016 · Closed · from registration SM23328 (West Park Healthcare Centre)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM23328: Official Plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment and site plan application in support of redevelopment of 82 Buttonwood Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 121271 WET 11 OZ at 82 Buttonwood Ave: Proposed amendments to the City's Official Plan and By-law 1001-2010 to permit redevelopment project (Blocks A, B and C) to accommodate hospital uses, and ancillary uses, and additional future development, respectively. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Official Plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment and site plan application in support of redevelopment of 82 Buttonwood Ave.
Matched fields
- address
- 82 BUTTONWOOD AVE
- application_address
- 82 BUTTONWOOD AVE
82 Buttonwood Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 121285 WET 11 SA · submitted 26 February 2016 · NOAC Issued · from registration SM23328 (West Park Healthcare Centre)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.89
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 SM23328: Official Plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment and site plan application in support of redevelopment of 82 Buttonwood Ave. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 121285 WET 11 SA at 82 Buttonwood Ave: Proposed amendments to the City's Official Plan and By-law 1001-2010 to permit redevelopment project (Blocks A, B and C) to accommodate hospital uses, and ancillary uses, and additional future development, respectively. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Official Plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment and site plan application in support of redevelopment of 82 Buttonwood Ave.
Matched fields
- address
- 82 BUTTONWOOD AVE
- application_address
- 82 BUTTONWOOD AVE
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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 5
8 lobbied · 137 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 8 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 137 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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 5
15 lobbied · 40 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 15 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 40 | 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 | 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.
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 5
12 lobbied · 17 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 | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 17 | 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), Ward 5
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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 | 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.