Address · Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
2100 - 2122 Bridletowne Circle
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
- Location
- 43.79888, -79.31342
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 2100 BRIDLETOWNE CIR.
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
1These 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 39 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 13 | 4 | 10 March 2017 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22155 | Portal Realty Corporation | 2100 - 2122 Bridletowne Circle | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 25 August 2015 – 5 June 2017 | 13 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 13 November 2018Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 18 255994 ESC 39 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 July 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 197741 ESC 39 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 255994 ESC 39 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 13 November 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 197741 ESC 39 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 July 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
2100-2122 Bridletowne Crcl · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 197741 ESC 39 SA · submitted 27 July 2016 · Closed · from registration SM22155 (Portal Realty Corporation)
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 SM22155: Proposed residential redevelopment of 2100 - 2122 Bridletowne Circle (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 197741 ESC 39 SA at 2100-2122 Bridletowne Crcl: This Site Plan Control application is to permit the development of 60 stacked back to back townhouse units. The existing commercial plaza on the site is to be demolished. Zoning By-laws 254-2017 and 255-2017 apply to the site. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed residential redevelopment of 2100 - 2122 Bridletowne Circle
Matched fields
- address
- 2100-2122 BRIDLETOWNE CIR
- application_address
- 2100-2122 BRIDLETOWNE CIR
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), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22
7 lobbied · 14 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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | 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.