Address · Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
2 Holiday Drive
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Location
- 43.65086, -79.56711
- How this address was located
- Located from the coordinates or ward published with the application.
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
Data table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre | Member of council | 5 | 5 | 17 October 2012 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM18524 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 2 Holiday Drive | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 9 October 2012 – 20 February 2018 | 3 |
| SM18471 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 2 Holiday Drive | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla… | 27 September 2012 – 27 September 2013 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 16 August 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 207951 WET 03 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 September 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 255414 WET 03 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 September 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 247275 WET 03 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 207951 WET 03 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 16 August 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 255414 WET 03 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 28 September 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 247275 WET 03 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 September 2012 | 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
2 Holiday Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 255414 WET 03 OZ · submitted 28 September 2012 · Closed · from registration SM18471 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM18471: 2 Holiday Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 255414 WET 03 OZ at 2 Holiday Dr: Proposed development of townhouse units with underground parking. The townhouse units will be constructed in a variety of forms including stacked townhouses and back to back units arranged in 13 blocks with a central common amenity area. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2 Holiday Drive
Matched fields
- address
- 2 HOLIDAY DR
- application_address
- 2 HOLIDAY DR
2 Holiday Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 255414 WET 03 OZ · submitted 28 September 2012 · Closed · from registration SM18524 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM18524: 2 Holiday Drive, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 255414 WET 03 OZ at 2 Holiday Dr: Proposed development of townhouse units with underground parking. The townhouse units will be constructed in a variety of forms including stacked townhouses and back to back units arranged in 13 blocks with a central common amenity area. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2 Holiday Drive, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 2 HOLIDAY DR
- application_address
- 2 HOLIDAY DR
2 Holiday Dr · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 247275 WET 03 SA · submitted 14 September 2012 · Closed · from registration SM18471 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM18471: 2 Holiday Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 247275 WET 03 SA at 2 Holiday Dr: Proposed development of townhouse units with underground parking. The townhouse units will be constructed in a variety of forms including stacked townhouses and back to back units arranged in 13 blocks with a central common amenity area. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2 Holiday Drive
Matched fields
- address
- 2 HOLIDAY DR
- application_address
- 2 HOLIDAY DR
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 2
1 lobbied · 1 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 | 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 | 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.
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.
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 2
5 lobbied · 15 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 15 | 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.