Address · Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
4000 Eglinton Ave W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Location
- 43.68338, -79.52303
- 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre | Member of council | 17 | 14 | 25 March 2019 |
| Stephen Holyday | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 14 February 2025 |
| Stephen Holyday | Member of council | 3 | 2 | 12 February 2025 |
| Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 25 March 2019 |
| Ward 38 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 26 April 2018 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM36333 | Lanterra Developments | 4000 Eglinton Avenue West. | Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance | 5 February 2025 – 1 February 2026 | 5 |
| SM26551 | Lanterra 4000 Eglinton Ltd Partnership | 4000 Eglinton Avenue West | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 24 July 2018 – 24 July 2020 | 0 |
| SM21920 | Lanterra Developments | 4000 Eglinton Avenue West | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Transit / TTC; Transportation - Metrolinx | 8 June 2015 – 31 July 2027 | 20 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 13 November 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0458/24EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 10 June 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 154650 WET 02 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 11 April 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0204/19EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 December 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 268318 WET 04 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0458/24EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 November 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 20 154650 WET 02 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 10 June 2020 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| A0204/19EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 11 April 2019 | Closed Approved |
| 15 268318 WET 04 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 December 2015 | 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
4000 Eglinton Ave W · Minor variance (MV)
A0458/24EYK · submitted 13 November 2024 · Closed · from registration SM36333 (Lanterra Developments)
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 SM36333: Will assist Lanterra Developments with Cmmtt of Adjustment application at 4000 Eglinton Avenue West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0458/24EYK at 4000 Eglinton Ave W: To modify the development standards from site specific By-law 767-2020(LPAT), and to create additional dwelling units to accomodate the proposed buildings. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Will assist Lanterra Developments with Cmmtt of Adjustment application at 4000 Eglinton Avenue West.
Matched fields
- address
- 4000 EGLINTON AVE W
- application_address
- 4000 EGLINTON AVE W
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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 2
7 lobbied · 115 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 115 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 2
5 lobbied · 15 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 15 | 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=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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 2
9 lobbied · 10 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 9 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 10 | 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 | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.