Address · Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
3125 Steeles Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
- Location
- 43.81367, -79.34717
- 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
1These 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 17 November 2017 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM25340 | North American Development Group | 3125 Steeles Avenue East | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian… | 17 November 2017 – 26 July 2023 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
12- Submitted 17 February 2026Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 26 118120 NNY 17 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 October 2024Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 24 229360 NNY 17 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 12 September 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0458/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 9 April 2024Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 24 134177 NNY 17 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 January 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0011/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 15 May 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0260/23NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 12 October 2021Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 21 224739 NNY 17 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 November 2020Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 20 218449 NNY 17 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 14 November 2020Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 20 218450 NNY 17 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 1 November 2016Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0936/16NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 25 July 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 196569 NNY 24 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 December 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 266578 NNY 24 SANOAC Issued · Approved
Data table· 12 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 118120 NNY 17 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 February 2026 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 24 229360 NNY 17 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 October 2024 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| A0458/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 12 September 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 24 134177 NNY 17 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 April 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0011/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 5 January 2024 | Closed Approved |
| A0260/23NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 15 May 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 21 224739 NNY 17 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 12 October 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 218449 NNY 17 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 14 November 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 218450 NNY 17 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 14 November 2020 | Under Review In progress |
| A0936/16NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 1 November 2016 | Closed Approved |
| 16 196569 NNY 24 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 July 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 266578 NNY 24 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 December 2015 | NOAC Issued Approved |
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
3125 Steeles Ave E · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 196569 NNY 24 SA · submitted 25 July 2016 · Closed · from registration SM25340 (North American Development Group)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM25340: Applications in support of redevelopment of Steeles Technology Campus 3125 Steeles Avenue East (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 196569 NNY 24 SA at 3125 Steeles Ave E: FULL SITE PLAN APPROVAL/NOAC ISSUANCE FOR BUILDINGS B AND C ONLY. Approval of a Master Site Plan as it pertains to buildings placement and site organization, and Site Plan Approval for Buildings B and C. Buildings A, D, E, F, and G require individual Site Plan Approval prior to building permit issu… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Applications in support of redevelopment of Steeles Technology Campus 3125 Steeles Avenue East
Matched fields
- address
- 3125 STEELES AVE E
- application_address
- 3125 STEELES AVE E
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 17
14 lobbied · 20 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 14 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 20 | 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=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 17
2 lobbied · 54 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 | 54 | 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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 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 | 6 | Hidden: 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.
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), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 17
2 lobbied · 2 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: 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.