Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
2400 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.70999, -79.39957
- 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 1 February 2023 |
| Economic Development | City staff | 1 | 0 | 25 January 2023 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM34057 | Fairgrounds Inc | 2400 Yonge St. | Building Permits; Business Improvement Area (BIA); Planning and Development Application | 17 January 2023 – 30 December 2023 | 3 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 8 February 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0068/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 October 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 239154 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 June 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 190823 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0068/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 February 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 19 239154 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 October 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 190823 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 30 June 2017 | 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
2440 Yonge St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 190823 NNY 16 OZ · submitted 30 June 2017 · Closed · from registration SM27570 (First capital Realty)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
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 SM27570: Development application at 2400-2444 Yonge Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 190823 NNY 16 OZ at 2440 Yonge St: Application to amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law to permit two mixed-use towers measuring 27 and 21 storeys in height atop a 6 storey base building and 1,232 square metre parkland dedication. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development application at 2400-2444 Yonge Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 2400-2444 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2400 YONGE ST
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 8
7 lobbied · 357 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 | 7 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 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.
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval 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 | 69 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 4% | 0.00 |
| 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
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
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval 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=3) | 0% | 12% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 57 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 26% | 0.03 |
| 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.
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.