Address · Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
200 Chalkfarm Dr
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
- Location
- 43.72422, -79.51065
- 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
4These 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 30 October 2020 |
| Ward 7 York West | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 2 October 2017 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM30753 | Greenboard ltd. | 200 Chalkfarm Drive | Planning and Development Application | 27 October 2020 – 1 May 2023 | 0 |
| SM27796 | Greenwin Inc. | 200 Chalkfarm Drive | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 5 March 2019 – 31 December 2026 | 2 |
| SM25117 | Greenboard Holdings Ltd. | 200 Chalkfarm Dr | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 2 October 2017 – 3 October 2020 | 1 |
| SM24065 | Greenboard Holdings Ltd. | 200 Chalkfarm Dr | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 22 February 2017 – 10 September 2026 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 19 December 2023Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5376310Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 6 October 2023Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application COA-5346132Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 18 December 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 262757 WET 07 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 22 December 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 269918 WET 07 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| COA-5376310 Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 19 December 2023 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| COA-5346132 Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 6 October 2023 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 19 262757 WET 07 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 18 December 2019 | Under Review In progress |
| 16 269918 WET 07 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 December 2016 | 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
160 Chalkfarm Dr · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 262757 WET 07 SA · submitted 18 December 2019 · Under Review · from registration SM27796 (Greenwin Inc.)
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 SM27796: 200 Chalkfarm Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 262757 WET 07 SA at 160 Chalkfarm Dr: To develop the property with a 31 storey apartment building with 467 residential unit. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 200 Chalkfarm Drive
Matched fields
- address
- 200 CHALKFARM DR
- application_address
- 200 CHALKFARM DR
160 Chalkfarm Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 269918 WET 07 OZ · submitted 22 December 2016 · Closed · from registration SM24065 (Greenboard Holdings Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM24065: ZBA application in support of redevelopment of 160,170,180,190 & 200 Chalkfarm Dr. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 269918 WET 07 OZ at 160 Chalkfarm Dr: This application proposes to amend the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 and the new City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 to permit a 36 storey (110.4 metres) apartment building containing 506 residential units The proposal would have a Floor Space Index of 2.96 times the area … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: ZBA application in support of redevelopment of 160,170,180,190 & 200 Chalkfarm Dr.
Matched fields
- address
- 190&200 CHALKFARM DR
- application_address
- 200 CHALKFARM DR
160 Chalkfarm Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 269918 WET 07 OZ · submitted 22 December 2016 · Closed · from registration SM25117 (Greenboard Holdings Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM25117: ZBA application in support of redevelopment of 160,170,180,190 & 200 Chalkfarm Dr. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 269918 WET 07 OZ at 160 Chalkfarm Dr: This application proposes to amend the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 and the new City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 to permit a 36 storey (110.4 metres) apartment building containing 506 residential units The proposal would have a Floor Space Index of 2.96 times the area … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: ZBA application in support of redevelopment of 160,170,180,190 & 200 Chalkfarm Dr.
Matched fields
- address
- 190&200 CHALKFARM DR
- application_address
- 200 CHALKFARM DR
160 Chalkfarm Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
16 269918 WET 07 OZ · submitted 22 December 2016 · Closed · from registration SM27796 (Greenwin Inc.)
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 SM27796: 200 Chalkfarm Drive (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 269918 WET 07 OZ at 160 Chalkfarm Dr: This application proposes to amend the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 and the new City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 to permit a 36 storey (110.4 metres) apartment building containing 506 residential units The proposal would have a Floor Space Index of 2.96 times the area … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 200 Chalkfarm Drive
Matched fields
- address
- 200 CHALKFARM DR
- application_address
- 200 CHALKFARM DR
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 7
2 lobbied · 8 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 | 8 | 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.
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 7
5 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval 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 | 28 | 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=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 7
7 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 96% (n=78) | 4% | 14% | 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.