Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle

2100 Avenue Rd

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 7; 1 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 2; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Location: 43.73735, -79.42094
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

Registrations that mention this address

These 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

Front Runner InvestmentsSM23021 · 25 April 20167

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Office of Councillor Carmichael Greb, Ward 267

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Office of Councillor Carmichael Greb, Ward 26	Councillor staff	7	1	10 May 2016

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM23021	Front Runner Investments	2100 Avenue Rd.	By-law / Regulation	25 April 2016 – 11 May 2016	7

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 30 August 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 215257 NNY 16 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted 21 December 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 267377 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
16 215257 NNY 16 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	30 August 2016	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 267377 NNY 16 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	21 December 2015	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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8

25 lobbied · 70 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied8%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8: 25 lobbied and 70 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 8

33 lobbied · 57 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied12%
Matched, unlobbied27%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.