Address · Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
630 Sheppard Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
- Location
- 43.76863, -79.38523
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 11 December 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 265324 NNY 17 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 6 March 2023Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 23 120411 NNY 18 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 September 2020Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 20 200970 NNY 17 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 31 July 2017Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 17 208789 NNY 24 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 9 August 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 253762 NNY 24 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 265324 NNY 17 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 11 December 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| 23 120411 NNY 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 6 March 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 200970 NNY 17 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 30 September 2020 | Under Review In progress |
| 17 208789 NNY 24 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 31 July 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 253762 NNY 24 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 9 August 2011 | 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
630 Sheppard Ave E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 208789 NNY 24 OZ · submitted 31 July 2017 · Closed · from registration SM22248 (Bentall Kennedy)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.71
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 SM22248: Bayview Village Redevelopment intersection of Bayview and Sheppard Avenues 2901 Bayview Ave (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 208789 NNY 24 OZ at 630 Sheppard Ave E: Bayview Village development including two development sites (North and South). The North site is located at Bayview Mews and Hawksbury Drive, and is proposed to include one 20-storey mixed use building; two 6-storey mixed use buildings; and a retail addition to the existing Bayview Village Shopping… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Bayview Village Redevelopment intersection of Bayview and Sheppard Avenues 2901 Bayview Ave
Matched fields
- address
- 2901 BAYVIEW AVE
- application_address
- 2901 BAYVIEW AVE
630 Sheppard Ave E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
17 208789 NNY 24 OZ · submitted 31 July 2017 · Closed · from registration SM24051 (QuadReal Property Group 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 SM24051: Lobbying for rezoning and official plan amendments for the following project: Bayview Village (2901 Bayview Avenue). (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 208789 NNY 24 OZ at 630 Sheppard Ave E: Bayview Village development including two development sites (North and South). The North site is located at Bayview Mews and Hawksbury Drive, and is proposed to include one 20-storey mixed use building; two 6-storey mixed use buildings; and a retail addition to the existing Bayview Village Shopping… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Lobbying for rezoning and official plan amendments for the following project: Bayview Village (2901 Bayview Avenue).
Matched fields
- address
- 2901 BAYVIEW AVE
- application_address
- 2901 BAYVIEW AVE
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.
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.
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.