Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
33 Helendale Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.70876, -79.39954
- 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
4- Submitted 12 December 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 260371 NNY 08 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 July 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 196151 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 7 May 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 168197 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 March 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 141927 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 260371 NNY 08 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 12 December 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 196151 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 26 July 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 168197 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 May 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 141927 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 March 2012 | 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
2360 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 196151 NNY 08 SA · submitted 26 July 2019 · Closed · from registration SM27494 (Lifetime Developments)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM27494: 2360-2376 Yonge Street & 31-37 Helendale Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 196151 NNY 08 SA at 2360 Yonge St: Site Plan amendment application to amend an existing site plan approval and agreement under file number: 12 165842 NNY 16 SA. The application proposes to alter the original approval for a 29-storey mixed-use building (inclusive of a 5-storey podium) by adding 2 additional residential storeys (for a… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2360-2376 Yonge Street & 31-37 Helendale Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 2360-2376 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2360 YONGE ST
2360 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 196151 NNY 08 SA · submitted 26 July 2019 · Closed · from registration SM28626 (New Rock Consultants Inc.)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.90
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM28626: Proposed residential development at 2360 - 2378 Yonge Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 196151 NNY 08 SA at 2360 Yonge St: Site Plan amendment application to amend an existing site plan approval and agreement under file number: 12 165842 NNY 16 SA. The application proposes to alter the original approval for a 29-storey mixed-use building (inclusive of a 5-storey podium) by adding 2 additional residential storeys (for a… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed residential development at 2360 - 2378 Yonge Street
Matched fields
- address
- 2360-2378 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2360 YONGE ST
2360 Yonge St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 168197 NNY 16 OZ · submitted 7 May 2012 · Closed · from registration SM17286 (Pemberton Group Inc.)
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 SM17286: 31-37 Helendale Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 168197 NNY 16 OZ at 2360 Yonge St: Rezoning application to permit a 28-storey mixed use residential and commercial building with 234 dwelling units and 2,695 m2 of commercial gross floor area. The proposed building consists of a six-storey base building (23.6 metres) with a 22-storey tower element. 147 parking spaces are proposed in… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 31-37 Helendale Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 31-37 HELENDALE AVE
- application_address
- 31 HELENDALE AVE
2360 Yonge St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 168197 NNY 16 OZ · submitted 7 May 2012 · Closed · from registration SM19474 (KCAP Helendale Inc.)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM19474: 2360 Yonge Street -- Rezoning Application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 168197 NNY 16 OZ at 2360 Yonge St: Rezoning application to permit a 28-storey mixed use residential and commercial building with 234 dwelling units and 2,695 m2 of commercial gross floor area. The proposed building consists of a six-storey base building (23.6 metres) with a 22-storey tower element. 147 parking spaces are proposed in… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2360 Yonge Street -- Rezoning Application
Matched fields
- address
- 2360 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2360 YONGE ST
33 Helendale Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 141927 NNY 16 OZ · submitted 23 March 2012 · Closed · from registration SM17286 (Pemberton Group Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM17286: 31-37 Helendale Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 141927 NNY 16 OZ at 33 Helendale Ave: Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the lands for a new 24 storey apartment building with 242 residential units. 16,594m2 of gross floor area is proposed. Replacement of the existing rental residential dwelling units located on site is proposed. 145parking spaces located in a below… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 31-37 Helendale Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 31-37 HELENDALE AVE
- application_address
- 31 HELENDALE 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.