lobbyTO

Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle

1-87 Bredonhill Crt

Registrations naming this address
0
Communications on those registrations
0
Applications at this address
35
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

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

Registrations that mention this address

0

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.

None.

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

No communications recorded.

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

35
Data table· 35 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
25 251661 NNY 08 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)10 November 2025Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
25 251663 NNY 08 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)10 November 2025Under Review
In progress
A0475/24NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 September 2024Closed
Approved
A0476/24NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 September 2024Closed
Approved
COA-5490131
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 August 2024Cancelled
Withdrawn
24 120893 NNY 08 PL
Development application
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)1 March 2024Approved
Approved
24 120937 NNY 08 PL
Development application
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)1 March 2024Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
24 119699 NNY 08 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)27 February 2024Draft Plan Approved
Approved
24 108534 NNY 08 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)26 January 2024Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
24 108552 NNY 08 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)26 January 2024Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0707/21NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 July 2021Closed
Approved
A0708/21NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 July 2021Closed
Approved
A0709/21NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 July 2021Closed
Approved
A0710/21NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 July 2021Closed
Approved
A0713/21NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 July 2021Closed
Approved
A0714/21NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)7 July 2021Closed
Approved
21 163883 NNY 08 PL
Development application
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)1 June 2021Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0346/20NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)9 July 2020Closed
Approved
A0327/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0331/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0332/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0333/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0334/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0335/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0336/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0338/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0339/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)13 May 2019Closed
Approved
A0150/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)28 February 2019Closed
Approved
A0152/19NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)28 February 2019Closed
Approved
17 277713 NNY 15 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)20 December 2017Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
17 222387 NNY 15 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)24 August 2017Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
17 112623 NNY 15 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)3 February 2017Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
16 124589 NNY 15 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)7 March 2016Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
10 170538 NNY 15 SB
Development application
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)6 May 2010Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
10 140382 NNY 15 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)26 March 2010Closed
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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=2
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%

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

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied33—100% (n=2)0%12%0.00
Matched, unlobbied57—100% (n=3)0%27%0.03
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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 matched

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

Data table· 2 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: 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 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 8: 7 lobbied and 357 matched unlobbied applications in 6 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied7Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied357Hidden: 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.

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 matched

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

Data table· 2 rows
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide: 2 lobbied and 6 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied6Hidden: 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 matched

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

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 8: 1 lobbied and 2 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—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 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied8%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8: 25 lobbied and 70 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied25—100% (n=3)0%8%0.00
Matched, unlobbied70727100% (n=4)0%4%0.00
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.