Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
52 Neptune Dr
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.73201, -79.43485
- 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
1These 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 19 December 2011 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM17584 | 2145072 Ontario Incl | 52 Neptune Drive | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 19 December 2011 – 31 December 2013 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 29 June 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 161241 NNY 08 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 30 December 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 200486 NNY 15 OZCouncil Approved · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 161241 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 29 June 2020 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 09 200486 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 December 2009 | Council Approved Approved |
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
52 Neptune Dr · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
09 200486 NNY 15 OZ · submitted 30 December 2009 · Council Approved · from registration SM17584 (2145072 Ontario Incl)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM17584: 50 and 52 Neptune Drive -- Rezoning Application (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 200486 NNY 15 OZ at 52 Neptune Dr: Revised application to permit the development of an 11 storey (35m) condominium building and rental replacement for a total of 169 residential units and 14,252.2 m2 of Gross Floor Area. Also proposed is 265.1m2 of indoor amenity space, 420.6 m2 of outdoor amenity space, 153 residential parking spac… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 50 and 52 Neptune Drive -- Rezoning Application
Matched fields
- address
- 52 NEPTUNE DR
- application_address
- 52 NEPTUNE DR
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 · 70 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 25 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 8% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 70 | 727 | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 4% | 0.00 |
| 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 8
33 lobbied · 57 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 | 33 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 12% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 57 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 27% | 0.03 |
| 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.