Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
42 Cartwright Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.72358, -79.46071
- 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 28 October 2016Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0075/16NYNotice Prepared · In progress
- Submitted 28 March 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 144920 NNY 15 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 March 2012Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 12 144928 NNY 15 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0075/16NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 28 October 2016 | Notice Prepared In progress |
| 12 144920 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 28 March 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 144928 NNY 15 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 28 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
36 Jane Osler Blvd · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
12 144928 NNY 15 SB · submitted 28 March 2012 · Closed · from registration SM27689 (Sunfield Investments (Yorkdale) Inc.)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM27689: Draft Plan of Subdivision Processing and approvals. 36& 37 Jane Osler Drive. Subdivision 12 144928 NNY 15SB (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 144928 NNY 15 SB at 36 Jane Osler Blvd: Proposed to construct eight single detached dwellings (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Draft Plan of Subdivision Processing and approvals. 36& 37 Jane Osler Drive. Subdivision 12 144928 NNY 15SB
Matched fields
- file_number
- 12 144928 NNY 15 SB
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.
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.
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 Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.