Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
9 Chauncey Avenue
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.63771, -79.52213
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 9B CHAUNCEY AVE.
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 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 12 December 2016 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23817 | Larendale Group of Companies | 9 Chauncey Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 12 December 2016 – 1 February 2022 | 1 |
| SM23818 | Larendale Group of Companies | 9 Chauncey Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 12 December 2016 – 15 December 2017 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 6 July 2021Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0032/21EYKConditional Consent · Approved
- Submitted 29 June 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0611/17EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 29 June 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0612/17EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 29 June 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0065/17EYKClosed · Approved
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0032/21EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 6 July 2021 | Conditional Consent Approved |
| A0611/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 29 June 2017 | Closed Approved |
| A0612/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 29 June 2017 | Closed Approved |
| B0065/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 29 June 2017 | Closed Approved |
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
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.
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 3
4 lobbied · 265 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 265 | 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.