Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
200 Ridley Blvd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.73874, -79.41967
- 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
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 16 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 11 June 2012 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM20797 | Starlight Investments and Kanco 200 Ridley Ltd. | 200 Ridley Boulevard | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 23 June 2014 – 27 February 2015 | 0 |
| SM17902 | Starlight Investments | 200 Ridley Blvd. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 15 March 2012 – 31 December 2015 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 18 May 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 176173 NNY 16 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 May 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 176179 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 176173 NNY 16 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 18 May 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 176179 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 18 May 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
200 Ridley Blvd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 176173 NNY 16 SA · submitted 18 May 2012 · Closed · from registration SM17902 (Starlight Investments)
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 SM17902: Starlight and its subsidiary company intend to file planning applications to redevelop the property municipally described as 200 Ridley Blvd., in Toronto. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 176173 NNY 16 SA at 200 Ridley Blvd: The site contains an existing 91 unit 4-storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to redevelop the vacant front portion of the site, which includes the front lawn, circular driveway and surface parking lot, with 19 multiple attached dwelling units (townhouses) and one-single family dwelling… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …ight and its subsidiary company intend to file planning applications to redevelop the property municipally described as 200 Ridley Blvd., in Toronto.
Matched fields
- address
- 200 RIDLEY BLVD
- application_address
- 200 RIDLEY BLVD
200 Ridley Blvd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
12 176173 NNY 16 SA · submitted 18 May 2012 · Closed · from registration SM20797 (Starlight Investments and Kanco 200 Ridley Ltd.)
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 SM20797: Zoning and site plan applications to develop 200 Ridley Boulevard (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 176173 NNY 16 SA at 200 Ridley Blvd: The site contains an existing 91 unit 4-storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to redevelop the vacant front portion of the site, which includes the front lawn, circular driveway and surface parking lot, with 19 multiple attached dwelling units (townhouses) and one-single family dwelling… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Zoning and site plan applications to develop 200 Ridley Boulevard
Matched fields
- address
- 200 RIDLEY BLVD
- application_address
- 200 RIDLEY BLVD
190 Ridley Blvd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 176179 NNY 16 OZ · submitted 18 May 2012 · Closed · from registration SM20797 (Starlight Investments and Kanco 200 Ridley Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM20797: Zoning and site plan applications to develop 200 Ridley Boulevard (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 176179 NNY 16 OZ at 190 Ridley Blvd: The site contains an existing 91 unit 4-storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to redevelop the vacant front portion of the site, which includes the front lawn, circular driveway and surface parking lot, with a 3-storey (plus rooftop amenity area) apartment building consisting of 30 resi… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Zoning and site plan applications to develop 200 Ridley Boulevard
Matched fields
- address
- 200 RIDLEY BLVD
- application_address
- 200 RIDLEY BLVD
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8
25 lobbied · 70 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 25 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 8% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 70 | 727 | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 4% | 0.00 |
| 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.
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.