Address · Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
939 Lawrence Ave East
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
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
4These 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 25 Don Valley West | Member of council | 4 | 1 | 31 August 2010 |
| Office of Councillor Cliff Jenkins, Ward 25 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 19 August 2010 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM14884 | C/F Realty Holdings Inc. | 939 Lawrence Avenue East | Planning and Development Application, Part Lot | 9 August 2010 – 26 August 2011 | 5 |
| SM13795 | Don Mills Residents Inc | 939 Lawrence Ave. E | Planning and Development, Official Plan and Rezoning Application | 15 November 2009 – 30 June 2010 | 0 |
| SM13539 | Cadilac Fairview | 939 Lawrence Avenue East | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 29 September 2009 – 31 December 2009 | 0 |
| SM13540 | The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited | 939 Lawrence Ave East | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 29 September 2009 – 29 December 2009 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 7 April 2015Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0359/15NYHearing Scheduled · Approved
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0359/15NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 April 2015 | Hearing 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 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.