Address · Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
980 Lansdowne Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Location
- 43.66852, -79.44749
- 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 17 Davenport | Member of council | 4 | 4 | 20 March 2018 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22579 | Edgewood Holdings Inc | 980 Lansdowne Avenue | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study | 14 December 2015 – 30 October 2019 | 4 |
| SM19631 | Emsatec Canada Inc | 980 Lansdowne Ave. | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 1 September 2013 – 1 September 2014 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
11- Submitted 22 June 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 185378 WET 17 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 October 2016Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 16 233465 WET 17 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 July 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 197611 WET 17 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 July 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 197627 WET 17 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 June 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 165922 WET 17 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 11 May 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 154754 WET 17 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 March 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 129274 WET 17 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 October 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 252389 WET 17 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 2 August 2012Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 12 223182 WET 17 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 March 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 142739 WET 17 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 March 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 142758 WET 17 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 11 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 185378 WET 17 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 June 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 233465 WET 17 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 5 October 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 197611 WET 17 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 27 July 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 197627 WET 17 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 27 July 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 165922 WET 17 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 1 June 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 154754 WET 17 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 11 May 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 129274 WET 17 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 18 March 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 252389 WET 17 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 17 October 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 223182 WET 17 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 2 August 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 142739 WET 17 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 March 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 142758 WET 17 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 30 March 2010 | 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
980 Lansdowne Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
15 129274 WET 17 SA · submitted 18 March 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22579 (Edgewood Holdings Inc)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.90
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 SM22579: Site Plan Approval for Phase 7 Davenport Village 980 Lansdowne Avenue, a development of 56 townhouses and a below grade parking structure (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 129274 WET 17 SA at 980 Lansdowne Ave: Proposal to permit the construction of a 56-unit three-storey townhouse development located in 2 building blocks. This proposed development represents Phase 7 of the Davenport Village Area Development. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site Plan Approval for Phase 7 Davenport Village 980 Lansdowne Avenue, a development of 56 townhouses and a below grade parking structure
Matched fields
- address
- 980 LANSDOWNE AVE
- application_address
- 980 LANSDOWNE AVE
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
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 9
19 lobbied · 28 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 | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | 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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | 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.
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 Condominium (CD), Ward 9
2 lobbied · 4 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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 | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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 9
20 lobbied · 21 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| 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.