Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle

515 Chaplin Cres

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

Registrations naming this address: 1; 1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations: 1; 1 offices contacted
Applications at this address: 2; No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items: 0; Items naming this address

About this address

Ward: Ward 8 · Mike Colle
Location: 43.70495, -79.42425
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

Registrations that mention this address

These 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

Eldebron Holdings LimitedSM33158 · 12 April 20221

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Office of Mike Colle1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Office of Mike Colle	Councillor staff	1	1	12 April 2022

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM33158	Eldebron Holdings Limited	515 Chaplin Crescent	Planning and Development; Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion	12 April 2022 – 12 October 2023	1

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 26 January 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 112660 NNY 16 SAUnder Review · In progress
Submitted 23 December 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 199580 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
12 112660 NNY 16 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	26 January 2012	Under Review In progress
09 199580 NNY 16 OZ Development application	Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)	23 December 2009	Closed Closed (outcome not recorded)

Linked lobbying registrations

No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.

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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8

25 lobbied · 69 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=2

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied8%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 8: 25 lobbied and 69 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 8

33 lobbied · 57 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=3
Matched, unlobbied100% n=3

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied12%
Matched, unlobbied26%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=78
Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

Lobbied12%
Matched, unlobbied14%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 8: 33 lobbied and 57 matched unlobbied applications in 22 matched strata
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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
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.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.