Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle

165 Elm Ridge Dr

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 4; 2 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 4; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Location: 43.70243, -79.43880
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

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

Bryan KeshanSM30536 · 8 September 20204

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence3
Councillor Colle1

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence	Member of council	3	1	27 January 2022
Councillor Colle	Councillor staff	1	0	17 January 2022

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM30536	Bryan Keshan	165 Elm Ridge Drive	Planning and Development Application; Zoning By-law	8 September 2020 – 1 September 2024	4

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 31 May 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0289/23NYApproved with Conditions · Approved
Submitted 31 May 2023Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0017/23NYClosed · Approved
Submitted 18 October 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 226962 NNY 08 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 18 October 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 226967 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 4 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0289/23NY Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	31 May 2023	Approved with Conditions Approved
B0017/23NY Committee of Adjustment application	Consent (severance) (CO)	31 May 2023	Closed Approved
21 226962 NNY 08 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	18 October 2021	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
21 226967 NNY 08 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	18 October 2021	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

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
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.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
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.

Committee of Adjustment applications

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide

26 lobbied · 179 matched

Median days

Lobbied184
Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

Lobbied79% n=24
Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

Lobbied21%
Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

Lobbied15%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

Lobbied25%
Matched, unlobbied25%

Data table· 2 rows

Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Development applications

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
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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.

Development applications

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
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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.