Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
42-46 Overlea Blvd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.70712, -79.34811
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 42 OVERLEA BLVD.
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· 13 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 26 Don Valley West | Member of council | 21 | 11 | 14 July 2017 |
| Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 3 | 1 | 3 November 2015 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 3 November 2015 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 21 August 2013 |
| Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 27 October 2015 |
| Ward 24 Willowdale | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 27 October 2015 |
| Ward 25 Don Valley West | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 3 November 2015 |
| Ward 2 Etobicoke North | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 24 January 2013 |
| Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 3 November 2015 |
| Ward 34 Don Valley East | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 23 October 2015 |
| Ward 37 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 23 October 2015 |
| Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 3 November 2015 |
| Ward 9 York Centre | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 2 October 2013 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22370 | 2041430 Ontario Limited | 42-46 Overlea Boulevard. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 21 October 2015 – 30 November 2015 | 15 |
| SM21850 | Glen Day | 42-46 Overlea Blvd | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 25 May 2015 – 31 December 2015 | 0 |
| SM18750 | Rice Commercial Group Limited | 42-46 Overlea Blvd | Building Permits; By-law / Regulation; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 5 December 2012 – 31 July 2018 | 25 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 19 June 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 190927 NNY 26 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 June 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 190948 NNY 26 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 190927 NNY 26 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 June 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 190948 NNY 26 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 June 2013 | 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
42 Overlea Blvd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 190927 NNY 26 OZ · submitted 19 June 2013 · Closed · from registration SM18750 (Rice Commercial Group Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.71
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 SM18750: Property Address is 42-46 Overlea Blvd, issue is zoning compliance for a redevelopment proposal. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 190927 NNY 26 OZ at 42 Overlea Blvd: Rezoning application to permit a one-storey, 14,752 square metre retail warehouse facility (Costco Warehouse Membership Club) on the western portion of the site and an ancillary 4 island, 8 pump gas bar and surface parking lot containing 566 parking spaces on the eastern portion of the site. A port… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Property Address is 42-46 Overlea Blvd, issue is zoning compliance for a redevelopment proposal.
Matched fields
- address
- 42-46 OVERLEA BLVD
- application_address
- 42-46 OVERLEA BLVD
42 Overlea Blvd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 190927 NNY 26 OZ · submitted 19 June 2013 · Closed · from registration SM21850 (Glen Day)
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 SM21850: Official Plan Amendment 42-46 Overlea Blvd (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 190927 NNY 26 OZ at 42 Overlea Blvd: Rezoning application to permit a one-storey, 14,752 square metre retail warehouse facility (Costco Warehouse Membership Club) on the western portion of the site and an ancillary 4 island, 8 pump gas bar and surface parking lot containing 566 parking spaces on the eastern portion of the site. A port… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Official Plan Amendment 42-46 Overlea Blvd
Matched fields
- address
- 42-46 OVERLEA BLVD
- application_address
- 42-46 OVERLEA BLVD
42 Overlea Blvd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 190927 NNY 26 OZ · submitted 19 June 2013 · Closed · from registration SM22370 (2041430 Ontario Limited)
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 SM22370: Zoning By-law Amendment Application - 42-46 Overlea Boulevard. Permission is sought to Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 & East York By-law 1916 to permit a large scale stand alone retail store. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 190927 NNY 26 OZ at 42 Overlea Blvd: Rezoning application to permit a one-storey, 14,752 square metre retail warehouse facility (Costco Warehouse Membership Club) on the western portion of the site and an ancillary 4 island, 8 pump gas bar and surface parking lot containing 566 parking spaces on the eastern portion of the site. A port… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Zoning By-law Amendment Application - 42-46 Overlea Boulevard. Permission is sought to Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 & East York By-law 1916 to permit a large scale stand alone reta…
Matched fields
- address
- 42-46 OVERLEA BLVD
- application_address
- 42-46 OVERLEA BLVD
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 15
20 lobbied · 36 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 10% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 36 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 25% | 0.01 |
| 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.
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 15
12 lobbied · 41 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 | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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.