lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 22 135661 NNY 17 OZ

1800 Sheppard Ave E

Status
Council Approved
Approved
Submitted
19 April 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
9
5 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
1800 Sheppard Ave E
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
19 April 2022
Status
Council Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded

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

Description

Application to amend the zoning by-law to permit Phase 1A of the approved Masterplan Concept for the existing CF Fairview Mall. Phase A1 will replace the existing surface parking lot and driveway for that portion along Sheppard Avenue East adjacent to the Don Mills Subway Station area. The proposed Tower is 48-storeys in height with an 8-storey podium along Sheppard Avenue East.

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

2 linked registrations · 9 communications · 5 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Carroll, Ward 176
  • Ward 17 Don Valley North3
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Carroll, Ward 17Councillor staff6224 July 2020
Ward 17 Don Valley NorthMember of council3329 July 2022

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 17

13 lobbied · 16 matched

Hidden: 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 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied1,925
  • Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=64
  • Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied13%
  • Matched, unlobbied13%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 17: 13 lobbied and 16 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied16Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5731,925100% (n=64)0%13%0.08
Matched, unlobbied7631,79398% (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.