Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
250 Bowie Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.69516, -79.46395
- 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
7These 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· 15 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 81 | 38 | 23 October 2025 |
| Development Review Division | City staff | 23 | 2 | 26 January 2026 |
| Olivia Chow | Councillor staff | 16 | 5 | 15 September 2025 |
| Mike Colle | Member of council | 15 | 14 | 8 October 2024 |
| Councillor Colle | Councillor staff | 11 | 0 | 3 March 2022 |
| Development Review | City staff | 7 | 3 | 9 June 2025 |
| Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 7 | 5 | 30 August 2022 |
| Stephen Holyday | Member of council | 4 | 4 | 27 January 2023 |
| Office of Councillor Colle, Ward 8 | Councillor staff | 3 | 2 | 18 August 2022 |
| Lawrence Ingram, Keele Establishment (LIKE) BIA | Local board | 2 | 0 | 18 April 2023 |
| Development Review Divison | City staff | 1 | 0 | 15 January 2025 |
| Economic Development & Culture | City staff | 1 | 0 | 20 February 2024 |
| Toronto Building | City staff | 1 | 0 | 11 December 2023 |
| Brad Bradford | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 6 November 2023 |
| Brad Bradford | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 6 November 2023 |
All registrations· 7 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35104 | Hullmark Asset Management | 250 Bowie Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 4 December 2023 – 2 January 2027 | 25 |
| SM33686 | Hullmark Asset Management | 250 Bowie Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 21 September 2022 – 1 September 2027 | 69 |
| SM33692 | Hullmark Asset Management | 250 Bowie Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 21 September 2022 – 26 March 2024 | 1 |
| SM33703 | Hullmark Asset Management | 250 Bowie Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 21 September 2022 – 6 December 2023 | 9 |
| SM32779 | Hullmark Developments Limited | 250 Bowie Avenue | Planning and Development Application | 7 January 2022 – 31 March 2027 | 55 |
| SM32728 | Hullmark | 250 Bowie Avenue | Planning and Development Application | 21 December 2021 – 21 December 2023 | 13 |
| SM32729 | Hullmark | 250 Bowie Avenue | Planning and Development Application | 21 December 2021 – 20 December 2023 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 22 November 2024Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 24 242246 NNY 08 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 6 November 2024Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 24 235912 NNY 08 SBUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 242246 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 November 2024 | Under Review In progress |
| 24 235912 NNY 08 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 6 November 2024 | Under Review In progress |
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.
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
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 | 33 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 12% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 57 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 26% | 0.03 |
| 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.
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 Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.