Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
1-87 Bredonhill Crt
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.72272, -79.44401
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
35- Submitted 10 November 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 251661 NNY 08 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 10 November 2025Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 25 251663 NNY 08 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 13 September 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0475/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 September 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0476/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 August 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5490131Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 1 March 2024Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 24 120893 NNY 08 PLApproved · Approved
- Submitted 1 March 2024Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 24 120937 NNY 08 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 February 2024Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 24 119699 NNY 08 CDDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 26 January 2024Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 24 108534 NNY 08 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 January 2024Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 24 108552 NNY 08 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0707/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0708/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0709/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0710/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0713/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0714/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 1 June 2021Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 21 163883 NNY 08 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 July 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0346/20NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0327/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0331/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0332/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0333/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0334/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0335/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0336/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0338/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 May 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0339/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 28 February 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0150/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 28 February 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0152/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 December 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 277713 NNY 15 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 August 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 222387 NNY 15 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 February 2017Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 17 112623 NNY 15 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 March 2016Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 16 124589 NNY 15 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 6 May 2010Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 10 170538 NNY 15 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 March 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 140382 NNY 15 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 35 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 251661 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 November 2025 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 25 251663 NNY 08 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 10 November 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| A0475/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 September 2024 | Closed Approved |
| A0476/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 September 2024 | Closed Approved |
| COA-5490131 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 August 2024 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 24 120893 NNY 08 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 1 March 2024 | Approved Approved |
| 24 120937 NNY 08 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 1 March 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 24 119699 NNY 08 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 27 February 2024 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| 24 108534 NNY 08 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 January 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 24 108552 NNY 08 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 26 January 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0707/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0708/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0709/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0710/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0713/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0714/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| 21 163883 NNY 08 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 1 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0346/20NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 9 July 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A0327/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0331/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0332/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0333/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0334/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0335/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0336/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0338/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0339/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 May 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0150/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 28 February 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0152/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 28 February 2019 | Closed Approved |
| 17 277713 NNY 15 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 December 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 222387 NNY 15 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 August 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 112623 NNY 15 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 3 February 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 124589 NNY 15 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 7 March 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 170538 NNY 15 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 6 May 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 140382 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 March 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
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
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 8
33 lobbied · 57 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 33 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 12% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 57 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 27% | 0.03 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | 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.
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 8
7 lobbied · 357 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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 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.
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 8
1 lobbied · 2 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 2 | 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 8
25 lobbied · 70 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 25 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 8% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 70 | 727 | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 4% | 0.00 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.