Address · Ward 4 · Gord Perks
2114 Bloor St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 4 · Gord Perks
- Location
- 43.65223, -79.47205
- 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
3These 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park | Member of council | 10 | 9 | 29 June 2015 |
| Office of Councillor Doucette, Ward 13 | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 30 June 2015 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 23 April 2012 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM21406 | North Drive Investments Inc. | 2114 Bloor Street West | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 6 February 2015 – 31 December 2015 | 5 |
| SM17485 | North Drive Investments Inc. | 2114 Bloor St. W. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 24 November 2011 – 23 November 2013 | 1 |
| SM17454 | North Drive Investments Inc. | 2114 Bloor Street West. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 15 November 2011 – 31 December 2019 | 8 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 18 November 2020Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0083/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 16 July 2018Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 18 194329 WET 13 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0083/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 18 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| 18 194329 WET 13 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 16 July 2018 | 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
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), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 4
1 lobbied · 8 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 | 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 | 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.