Address · Ward 8 · Mike Colle
36 Eglinton Ave W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Location
- 43.70660, -79.39996
- 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
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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 2 March 2020 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM29837 | New Rock Consultants Inc. | 36 Eglinton Ave West | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Pla… | 3 March 2020 – 31 December 2021 | 0 |
| SM29687 | 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. | 36 Eglinton Ave West | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian… | 27 January 2020 – 27 January 2026 | 2 |
| SM25628 | Fieldgate Homes | 36 Eglinton Avenue West | Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance | 6 February 2018 – 31 December 2018 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 29 April 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 140249 NNY 08 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 4 November 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 234244 NNY 08 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 3 November 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 233896 NNY 08 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 7 January 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 101581 NNY 08 OZOMB Approved · Approved
- Submitted 10 June 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 148228 NNY 16 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 140249 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 29 April 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 234244 NNY 08 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 4 November 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 233896 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 3 November 2021 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 21 101581 NNY 08 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 7 January 2021 | OMB Approved Approved |
| 09 148228 NNY 16 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 June 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
36 Eglinton Ave W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
22 140249 NNY 08 SA · submitted 29 April 2022 · Under Review · from registration SM29837 (New Rock Consultants Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM29837: proposed development at 36 Eglinton Ave West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 140249 NNY 08 SA at 36 Eglinton Ave W: Site Plan Approval to permit the redevelopment of the site for a 59-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 2,784 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 38,817 square metres. A total of 613 residential units are proposed. A total of 74 parking spaces are… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: proposed development at 36 Eglinton Ave West
Matched fields
- address
- 36 EGLINTON AVE W
- application_address
- 36 EGLINTON AVE W
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 8
1 lobbied · 2 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 | 2 | 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.
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.