Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
282 Hillmount Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.70816, -79.44397
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 5 October 2022Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 22 213324 NNY 08 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 February 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 116786 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 June 2018Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 18 185562 NNY 15 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 213324 NNY 08 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 5 October 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 116786 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 February 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 185562 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 27 June 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
831 Glencairn Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 116786 NNY 08 SA · submitted 19 February 2019 · Closed · from registration SM27912 (Orion Realty Corporation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM27912: Discuss the project at 831 Glencairn Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 116786 NNY 08 SA at 831 Glencairn Ave: 10 storey mid-rise, mixed use building containing 218 dwelling units, a mechanical penthouse, green roof and amenity space. 360 sqm of retail space is proposed on the ground level. A total of 190 vehicle spaces and 222 bicycle spaces are proposed. Associated with re-zoning application 18 185562 NNY… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Discuss the project at 831 Glencairn Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 831 GLENCAIRN AVE
- application_address
- 831 GLENCAIRN AVE
831 Glencairn Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 185562 NNY 15 OZ · submitted 27 June 2018 · Closed · from registration SM25384 (Chestnut Hill Developments)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM25384: Supporting redevelopment of 831, 833 and 837 Glencairn Avenue in Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 185562 NNY 15 OZ at 831 Glencairn Ave: Rezoning application to allow a 10-storey mid-rise, mixed use building. Proposed development would include 218 dwelling units, including 2 live work units and ground floor retail. Underground parking would be provided. A total of 190 vehicle spaces and 218 bicycle spaces are proposed. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Supporting redevelopment of 831, 833 and 837 Glencairn Avenue in Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 837 GLENCAIRN AVE
- application_address
- 837 GLENCAIRN AVE
831 Glencairn Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
18 185562 NNY 15 OZ · submitted 27 June 2018 · Closed · from registration SM27912 (Orion Realty Corporation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
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 SM27912: Discuss the project at 831 Glencairn Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 185562 NNY 15 OZ at 831 Glencairn Ave: Rezoning application to allow a 10-storey mid-rise, mixed use building. Proposed development would include 218 dwelling units, including 2 live work units and ground floor retail. Underground parking would be provided. A total of 190 vehicle spaces and 218 bicycle spaces are proposed. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Discuss the project at 831 Glencairn Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 831 GLENCAIRN AVE
- application_address
- 831 GLENCAIRN AVE
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), Ward 8
1 lobbied · 2 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 | 2 | 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.
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 · 69 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 25 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 8% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 4% | 0.00 |
| 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 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.