lobbyTO

Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)

Development application 14 262818 NNY 33 SB

299 Yorkland Blvd; 2135 Sheppard Ave E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
10 December 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
22
14 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Addresses
299 Yorkland Blvd; 2135 Sheppard Ave E
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
10 December 2014
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
1,100 units; 18,746 m² gross floor area
Related file
12 126689 NNY 33 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the site to be subdivided into 6 new blocks including an approved mixed use development block, a 2,139 square metre public park, a public road as well as future road widenings. The development block will consist of 1,100 dwelling units in three residential buildings with heights of 26, 34 and 43 storeys and a 4-storey stand-alone large format retail building with a gross floor area of 18,746 square metres.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 22 communications · 14 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 17 Don Valley NorthMember of council151116 December 2021
Shelley CarrollCouncillor staff5119 April 2022
Shelley CarrollCouncillor staff1130 October 2024
Shelley CarrollMember of council1118 April 2023

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Comparison with similar 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 Subdivision (SB), Ward 17

2 lobbied · 2 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide

16 lobbied · 48 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 17: 2 lobbied and 2 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied2Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide: 16 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 15 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied48Hidden: 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.