Address · Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
91 Callowhill Dr
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Location
- 43.68360, -79.56386
- 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM24050 | Tiffany Park Homes (Richview) Limited | 91 Callowhill Drive | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Plan of Condominium; Planning and Developme… | 16 February 2017 – 16 February 2021 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 19 October 2017Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 17 250066 WET 04 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 October 2017Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 17 250084 WET 04 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 December 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 198044 WET 04 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 250066 WET 04 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 19 October 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 250084 WET 04 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 19 October 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 198044 WET 04 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 18 December 2009 | 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
91 Callowhill Dr · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
17 250066 WET 04 CD · submitted 19 October 2017 · Closed · from registration SM24050 (Tiffany Park Homes (Richview) Limited)
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 SM24050: For 91 Callowhill Drive Servicing of the site and implementation of building program (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 250066 WET 04 CD at 91 Callowhill Dr: Development of twenty-one residential street town house units serviced via a private common element condominium road with access from Callowhill Drive and The Westway. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: For 91 Callowhill Drive Servicing of the site and implementation of building program
Matched fields
- address
- 91 CALLOWHILL DR
- application_address
- 91 CALLOWHILL DR
91 Callowhill Dr · Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)
17 250084 WET 04 PL · submitted 19 October 2017 · Closed · from registration SM24050 (Tiffany Park Homes (Richview) Limited)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM24050: For 91 Callowhill Drive Servicing of the site and implementation of building program (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 250084 WET 04 PL at 91 Callowhill Dr: Development of twenty-one residential street town house units serviced via a private common element condominium road with access from Callowhill Drive and The Westway. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: For 91 Callowhill Drive Servicing of the site and implementation of building program
Matched fields
- address
- 91 CALLOWHILL DR
- application_address
- 91 CALLOWHILL 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 2
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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 | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | 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.
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.