Address · Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
4650 Eglinton Ave W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Location
- 43.67842, -79.54756
- 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 4 June 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0047/17EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 4 June 2017Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0048/17EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 22 November 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 254406 WET 04 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 May 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 154027 WET 04 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0047/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 4 June 2017 | Closed Approved |
| B0048/17EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 4 June 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 16 254406 WET 04 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 November 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 154027 WET 04 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 8 May 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
4650 Eglinton Ave W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 254406 WET 04 SA · submitted 22 November 2016 · Closed · from registration SM22643 (Shannex Ontario Ltd)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
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 SM22643: Discussion about site plan and proposed architecture for the retirement living development located at 4650 Eglinton Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 254406 WET 04 SA at 4650 Eglinton Ave W: Site Plan application to permit a residential development containing 270 apartment units. The development would consist of two, 9-storey mid-rise buildings connected by a central 5-storey base building (podium). The development would be geared towards senior tenants. A daycare will be provided on t… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Discussion about site plan and proposed architecture for the retirement living development located at 4650 Eglinton Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 4650 EGLINTON AVE
- application_address
- 4650 EGLINTON AVE W
4650 Eglinton Ave W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 154027 WET 04 OZ · submitted 8 May 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22643 (Shannex Ontario Ltd)
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 SM22643: Discussion about site plan and proposed architecture for the retirement living development located at 4650 Eglinton Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 154027 WET 04 OZ at 4650 Eglinton Ave W: To permit a residential development containing 272 apartment units. The development would consist of two, 9-storey mid-rise buildings connected by a central 5-storey base building (podium). The development would be geared towards senior tenants. A daycare will be provided on the main floor of the d… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Discussion about site plan and proposed architecture for the retirement living development located at 4650 Eglinton Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 4650 EGLINTON AVE
- application_address
- 4650 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.
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 2
2 lobbied · 22 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 22 | 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 | 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.
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.