Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
865 York Mills Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Location
- 43.75430, -79.34958
- 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
7These 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· 6 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 4 | 1 | 8 November 2012 |
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 3 | 2 | 2 July 2015 |
| City Manager Office | City staff | 1 | 1 | 10 September 2013 |
| deputy city manager | City staff | 1 | 1 | 30 November 2011 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 10 September 2013 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 10 August 2011 |
All registrations· 7 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM21993 | Liberty Development Corporation | 865 York Mills Road | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 30 June 2015 – 30 June 2016 | 1 |
| SM19734 | Liberty Development Corporation | 865 York Mills Road | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application, Official P… | 9 October 2013 – 15 December 2013 | 1 |
| SM18681 | Liberty Development Corporation | 865 York Mills Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 8 November 2012 – 27 May 2020 | 1 |
| SM18437 | 2141805 Ontario Inc. | 865 York Mills Rd. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 12 September 2012 – 26 July 2023 | 1 |
| SM17511 | LibertyDevelopment Corporation | 865 York Mills Rd. | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 30 November 2011 – 31 December 2025 | 3 |
| SM16904 | Liberty Developments | 865 York Mills Road | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 10 August 2011 – 8 August 2015 | 3 |
| SM12526 | Liberty Developments | 865 York Mills Road | Combined Planning and Development Application, Zonign By-law and Site Plan | 21 November 2008 – 11 June 2014 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 4 August 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0546/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 23 December 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 330777 NNY 34 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 15 June 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 149799 NNY 34 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0546/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 4 August 2021 | Closed Approved |
| 11 330777 NNY 34 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 December 2011 | Under Review In progress |
| 09 149799 NNY 34 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 15 June 2009 | 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
865 York Mills Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 330777 NNY 34 OZ · submitted 23 December 2011 · Under Review · from registration SM19734 (Liberty Development Corporation)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
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 SM19734: 865 York Mills Road - an outstanding official plan amendment application and the treatment of the property under the 5 year municipal comprehensive review draft policies and designations for employment currently undertaken by City Planning Staff (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 330777 NNY 34 OZ at 865 York Mills Rd: INACTIVE Proposal is to amend the Official Plan to permit residential and retail uses on the site. The proposal includes two 25 storey office buildings each with 26,695 sq.m. GFA, 16,700 sq.m. of retail space, a 20 storey hotel with 15,300 sq.m. of GFA and 3 residential buildings with 892 residenti… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 865 York Mills Road - an outstanding official plan amendment application and the treatment of the property under the 5 year municipal compr…
Matched fields
- address
- 865 YORK MILLS RD
- application_address
- 865 YORK MILLS RD
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 16
5 lobbied · 35 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 35 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 16
4 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 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.
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 16
10 lobbied · 23 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 23 | 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=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.