Address · Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
1218 Royal York Rd
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Location
- 43.66661, -79.52023
- 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM28134 | Natasha Bridgmohan | 1218 Royal York Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 6 May 2019 – 31 December 2019 | 0 |
| SM28135 | Natasha Bridgmohan | 1218 Royal York Road | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 6 May 2019 – 31 December 2019 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 17 September 2021Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0038/21EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 17 September 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4996301Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 17 September 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4996309Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 22 July 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4615517Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 21 December 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 271115 WET 02 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 December 2018Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4502629Cancelled · Withdrawn
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0038/21EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 17 September 2021 | Closed Approved |
| COA-4996301 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 September 2021 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| COA-4996309 Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 September 2021 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| COA-4615517 Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 22 July 2019 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 18 271115 WET 02 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 21 December 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| COA-4502629 Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 20 December 2018 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
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
1218 Royal York Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 271115 WET 02 OZ · submitted 21 December 2018 · Closed · from registration SM28134 (Natasha Bridgmohan)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM28134: 1218 Royal York Road, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 271115 WET 02 OZ at 1218 Royal York Rd: The applicant proposed to contruct a new semi-detached dwelling. The existing dwelling will be demiolished. An application for a consent to sever the lands through the Committee of Adjustment will follow. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1218 Royal York Road, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 1218 ROYAL YORK RD
- application_address
- 1218 ROYAL YORK RD
1218 Royal York Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 271115 WET 02 OZ · submitted 21 December 2018 · Closed · from registration SM28135 (Natasha Bridgmohan)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM28135: 1218 Royal York Road, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 271115 WET 02 OZ at 1218 Royal York Rd: The applicant proposed to contruct a new semi-detached dwelling. The existing dwelling will be demiolished. An application for a consent to sever the lands through the Committee of Adjustment will follow. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1218 Royal York Road, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 1218 ROYAL YORK RD
- application_address
- 1218 ROYAL YORK RD
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 2
2 lobbied · 22 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 22 | 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 | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.
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 2
7 lobbied · 115 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 | 115 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 2
9 lobbied · 10 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 9 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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 | 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.