Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
2-56 Cather Cres
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.72356, -79.44391
- 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
16- Submitted 5 April 2023Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 23 131471 NNY 08 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 4 April 2023Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 23 130943 NNY 08 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 August 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0632/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 27 August 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0818/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 27 August 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0819/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 27 August 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0820/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 27 August 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0821/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0715/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0716/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0717/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0718/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0719/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0720/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 7 July 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0721/21NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 3 February 2017Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 17 112623 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· 16 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 131471 NNY 08 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 5 April 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 23 130943 NNY 08 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 4 April 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0632/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 August 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0818/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 August 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0819/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 August 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0820/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 August 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0821/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 27 August 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0715/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0716/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0717/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0718/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0719/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0720/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| A0721/21NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 July 2021 | Closed Approved |
| 17 112623 NNY 15 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 3 February 2017 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.