Address · Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
260 Consumers Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
- Location
- 43.77097, -79.33053
- 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shelley Carroll | Councillor staff | 6 | 4 | 22 April 2026 |
| Shelley Carroll | Member of council | 4 | 4 | 26 March 2026 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37208 | Parkway View Property LP | 260 Consumers Road | Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 3 December 2025 – 3 December 2026 | 5 |
| SM37184 | Parkway Views Property LP | 260 Consumers Road | Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 24 November 2025 – 24 November 2026 | 5 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 2 December 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 261353 NNY 17 OZUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 261353 NNY 17 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 2 December 2025 | Under Review In progress |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
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 17
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
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 | 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 | 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.