Address · Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
2787 Eglinton Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Location
- 43.73681, -79.24591
- 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
5These 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· 10 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 4 | 2 | 9 July 2020 |
| Toronto Water | City staff | 3 | 0 | 11 March 2024 |
| Councillor Gary Crawford | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 6 October 2021 |
| Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 3 | 1 | 4 May 2018 |
| Gary Crawford | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 29 March 2023 |
| Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services | City staff | 2 | 0 | 11 March 2024 |
| Councillor Michelle Holland | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 29 May 2017 |
| Mayor John Tory | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 3 March 2022 |
| Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 27 October 2017 |
| Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 19 December 2018 |
All registrations· 5 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM32246 | Mattamy (Danforth) Limited | 2787 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 26 August 2021 – 25 August 2027 | 12 |
| SM27155 | Mattamy Homes Limited | 2787 Eglinton Ave East | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 13 December 2018 – 31 May 2024 | 5 |
| SM24944 | Core Development Group Ltd. | 2787 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 14 August 2017 – 2 July 2020 | 4 |
| SM24626 | Pemberton Group Inc. | 2787 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 29 May 2017 – 29 June 2017 | 1 |
| SM21719 | Astral Media Outdoor, L.P. | 2787 Eglinton Avenue East | Signs | 27 April 2015 – 31 December 2015 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 21 January 2022Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 22 106334 ESC 20 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 April 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 148155 ESC 35 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 April 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 140669 ESC 35 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 106334 ESC 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 21 January 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 148155 ESC 35 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 24 April 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 140669 ESC 35 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 9 April 2018 | 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
2787 Eglinton Ave E · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
22 106334 ESC 20 CD · submitted 21 January 2022 · Closed · from registration SM32246 (Mattamy (Danforth) Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM32246: Delay with issuance of Notice of Approval Conditions - 2787 Eglinton Avenue East (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 106334 ESC 20 CD at 2787 Eglinton Ave E: Draft Plan of Condo Application 182 6 blocks of 4-storey stacked townhouses containing 182 residential units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Delay with issuance of Notice of Approval Conditions - 2787 Eglinton Avenue East
Matched fields
- address
- 2787 EGLINTON AVE E
- application_address
- 2787 EGLINTON AVE E
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 20
11 lobbied · 34 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | 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=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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 20
13 lobbied · 19 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 19 | 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 | 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.