Address · Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
3260 Sheppard Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 22 · Nick Mantas
- Location
- 43.77864, -79.31103
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 6 | 6 | 10 August 2017 |
| Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt | Member of council | 5 | 2 | 23 September 2019 |
| Councillor Karygiannis' Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 25 September 2019 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM24110 | Mondiale Development LTD. | 3260 Sheppard Ave. East | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development App… | 27 February 2017 – 30 November 2026 | 11 |
| SM17064 | Harmony Village Sheppard INc. | 3260 Sheppard Ave. E. | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 7 September 2011 – 7 November 2016 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 17 August 2026Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 26 221108 ESC 22 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 24 June 2026Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 26 190878 ESC 22 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 1 October 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0226/25SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 17 April 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0082/25SCClosed · Approved
- Submitted 9 November 2018Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0343/18SCClosed · Refused
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 221108 ESC 22 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 August 2026 | Under Review In progress |
| 26 190878 ESC 22 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 24 June 2026 | Under Review In progress |
| A0226/25SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 1 October 2025 | Closed Approved |
| A0082/25SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 17 April 2025 | Closed Approved |
| A0343/18SC Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 9 November 2018 | Closed Refused |
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 22
7 lobbied · 14 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 | 7 | 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 | 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.
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.
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 22
1 lobbied · 4 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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.