Address · Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
7-21 Richgrove Drive
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
- Location
- 43.67596, -79.56445
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 7 RICHGROVE DR.
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· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Michael Ford | Councillor staff | 6 | 1 | 12 November 2021 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 3 | 3 | 5 April 2019 |
| Transportation Services | City staff | 1 | 1 | 12 November 2021 |
| Mayor John Tory | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 15 May 2019 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM30900 | M Richgrove Corp. | 7-21 Richgrove Drive | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 27 November 2020 – 27 November 2026 | 7 |
| SM27964 | Minto Communities Inc. | 7-21 Richgrove Drive | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 4 April 2019 – 4 April 2027 | 1 |
| SM27946 | Minto Communities Inc. | 7-21 Richgrove Drive | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 1 April 2019 – 31 December 2026 | 3 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 10 September 2021Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0484/21EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 9 December 2020Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0005/21EYKClosed · Approved
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0484/21EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 10 September 2021 | Closed Approved |
| B0005/21EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 9 December 2020 | Closed Approved |
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
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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 1
2 lobbied · 42 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 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 | 42 | 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 | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
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.
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 1
2 lobbied · 7 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 | 7 | 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.