lobbyTO

Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside

939 Lawrence Ave East

Registrations naming this address
4
4 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
5
2 offices contacted
Applications at this address
1
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
Location
43.73712, -79.34596
How this address was located
Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 946 LAWRENCE AVE E (7 civic numbers away).

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

Registrations that mention this address

4

These 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

  • Ward 25 Don Valley West4
  • Office of Councillor Cliff Jenkins, Ward 251
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 25 Don Valley WestMember of council4131 August 2010
Office of Councillor Cliff Jenkins, Ward 25Councillor staff1019 August 2010
All registrations· 4 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM14884C/F Realty Holdings Inc.939 Lawrence Avenue EastPlanning and Development Application, Part Lot9 August 2010 – 26 August 20115
SM13795Don Mills Residents Inc939 Lawrence Ave. EPlanning and Development, Official Plan and Rezoning Application15 November 2009 – 30 June 20100
SM13539Cadilac Fairview939 Lawrence Avenue EastPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan29 September 2009 – 31 December 20090
SM13540The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited939 Lawrence Ave EastPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan29 September 2009 – 29 December 20090

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
A0359/15NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 April 2015Hearing Scheduled
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.

Minor variance (MV), Ward 16

5 lobbied · 35 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied126
  • Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

  • Lobbied75% n=154
  • Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied43%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%
Data table· 4 rows
Minor variance (MV), Ward 16: 5 lobbied and 35 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied35Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.