Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
1100 Sheppard Ave W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.75169, -79.46656
- 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
2These 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor James Pasternak | Councillor staff | 3 | 0 | 26 August 2021 |
| Transportation Services | City staff | 2 | 0 | 21 November 2023 |
| Ward 6 York Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 19 October 2021 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM32216 | Sheppard Residences Limited Partnership | 1100 Sheppard Avenue West | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 16 August 2021 – 16 August 2027 | 5 |
| SM32196 | CentreCourt | 1100 Sheppard Avenue West | Planning and Development Application | 10 August 2021 – 31 December 2022 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
9- Submitted 10 July 2024Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 24 178354 NNY 06 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 3 March 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0120/23NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 4 November 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 234064 NNY 06 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 July 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 188445 NNY 06 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 December 2020Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 20 230655 NNY 06 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 February 2020Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0003/20NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 19 October 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0041/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 29 March 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 132479 NNY 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 31 May 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 170226 NNY 08 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 9 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 178354 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 July 2024 | Under Review In progress |
| A0120/23NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 3 March 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 21 234064 NNY 06 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 4 November 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 188445 NNY 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 July 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 230655 NNY 06 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 18 December 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0003/20NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 13 February 2020 | Closed Approved |
| B0041/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 19 October 2019 | Closed Approved |
| 19 132479 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 29 March 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 170226 NNY 08 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 31 May 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
1100 Sheppard Ave W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 188445 NNY 06 SA · submitted 22 July 2021 · Closed · from registration SM32216 (Sheppard Residences Limited Partnership)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM32216: Proposed residential building at 1100 Sheppard Avenue West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 188445 NNY 06 SA at 1100 Sheppard Ave W: Site Plan application to permit the proposal for a 14 storey residential building. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed residential building at 1100 Sheppard Avenue West
Matched fields
- address
- 1100 SHEPPARD AVE W
- application_address
- 1100 SHEPPARD 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 6
13 lobbied · 16 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 | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 16 | 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.
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 6
2 lobbied · 14 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 14 | 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 6
2 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 | 2 | 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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 6
17 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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 | 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.
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.