Address · Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
1980 Eglinton Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Location
- 43.72953, -79.28427
- 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
6- Submitted 10 September 2024Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 24 210682 ESC 21 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 8 April 2024Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 24 133782 ESC 21 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 9 August 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 195467 ESC 21 SBAppeal Received · In progress
- Submitted 9 August 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 195478 ESC 21 OZOMB Approved · Approved
- Submitted 30 November 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 258686 ESC 37 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 April 2008Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 08 150972 ESC 37 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 210682 ESC 21 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 September 2024 | Under Review In progress |
| 24 133782 ESC 21 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 8 April 2024 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 195467 ESC 21 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 9 August 2021 | Appeal Received In progress |
| 21 195478 ESC 21 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 9 August 2021 | OMB Approved Approved |
| 15 258686 ESC 37 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 November 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 08 150972 ESC 37 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 April 2008 | Closed 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
1980 Eglinton Ave E · Site Plan Approval (SA)
24 133782 ESC 21 SA · submitted 8 April 2024 · Under Review · from registration SM36511 (RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM36511: Scarborough Centre - 1966-1980 Eglinton Ave East. Site Plan Approval, Lift of Hold and Draft Plan of Subdivision. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 24 133782 ESC 21 SA at 1980 Eglinton Ave E: Site Plan Control application for Phase 1 of the development at 1980 Eglinton Ave. E. (RioCan lands) to permit two mixed-use buildings: a 47-storey (154-metre) western building with 491 residential units and a 44-storey (145-metre) eastern building with 467 residential (rental) units, including 34 … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Scarborough Centre - 1966-1980 Eglinton Ave East. Site Plan Approval, Lift of Hold and Draft Plan of Subdivision.
Matched fields
- address
- 1966-1980 EGLINTON AVE E
- application_address
- 1980 EGLINTON AVE E
1966 Eglinton Ave E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 258686 ESC 37 OZ · submitted 30 November 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22962 (RioCan Real Estate Management Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM22962: 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 258686 ESC 37 OZ at 1966 Eglinton Ave E: Official Plan Amendment application to add a Site and Area Specific Policy ("SASP") to the property at 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East (RioCan lands) to permit a mixed-use development with new streets and parkland. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road
Matched fields
- address
- 1966-2050 EGLINTON AVE E
- application_address
- 1966 EGLINTON AVE E
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 21
15 lobbied · 21 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 | 15 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | 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.
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 21
10 lobbied · 44 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 44 | 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 | 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.
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), Ward 21
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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· 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 | 1 | 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 | 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.