lobbyTO

Address · Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe

906 Yonge St

Registrations naming this address
11
8 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
31
8 offices contacted
Applications at this address
3
7 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Location
43.67369, -79.38886
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

Registrations that mention this address

11

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

Top 8

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Ward 11 University-Rosedale9
  • Kristyn Wong-Tam8
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale6
  • Dianne Saxe3
  • Office of Councillor Layton, Ward 112
  • Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam1
  • Mike Layton1
  • Mike Layton Ward 111
Data table· 8 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 11 University-RosedaleMember of council9710 June 2022
Kristyn Wong-TamCouncillor staff8130 September 2013
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council656 October 2011
Dianne SaxeMember of council3013 September 2023
Office of Councillor Layton, Ward 11Councillor staff2226 July 2021
Councillor Kristyn Wong-TamCouncillor staff109 September 2013
Mike LaytonCouncillor staff1013 May 2022
Mike Layton Ward 11Councillor staff1126 July 2021
All registrations· 11 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM35401Easton's Group of Hotels906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development; Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development, Combined …14 March 2024 – 13 March 20270
SM34805Easton's/Gupta Group906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning…12 September 2023 – 12 September 20230
SM34750906 Yonge Street Development Inc.906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development Application; Zoning By-law24 August 2023 – 24 August 20251
SM33368Easton's Group906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law10 June 2022 – 9 June 20231
SM32089Easton's Group906 Yonge StPlanning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law22 July 2021 – 21 July 20234
SM32058Easton's Group906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…19 July 2021 – 22 January 20243
SM320191293446 Ontario Inc.906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development; Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application9 July 2021 – 31 December 20255
SM31954Easton's Group906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development; Combined Application30 June 2021 – 4 August 20262
SM19658MTCC #562 and MTCC #698906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law9 September 2013 – 30 January 20151
SM16015Ridpath906 Yonge St.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law2 March 2011 – 2 June 20122
SM14168One-Ten Yorkville Limited906 Yonge StreetPlanning and Development, Planning Act Application - Zoning By-law22 February 2010 – 19 March 201512

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

3
Data table· 3 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
21 233780 STE 11 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)3 November 2021OMB Approved
Approved
21 233790 STE 11 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)3 November 2021NOAC Issued
Approved
10 200615 STE 27 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)18 June 2010Closed
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

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 11

69 lobbied · 60 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=10
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied10%
  • Matched, unlobbied11%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 11: 69 lobbied and 60 matched unlobbied applications in 31 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied69—100% (n=10)0%10%0.04
Matched, unlobbied60—100% (n=4)0%11%0.03
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied9%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied46—100% (n=3)0%9%0.09
Matched, unlobbied113—100% (n=11)0%2%0.02
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.