Address · Ward 6 · James Pasternak
671 Sheppard Ave W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Location
- 43.75439, -79.44280
- 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 21 February 2025Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 25 120160 NNY 06 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 20 November 2023Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 23 227998 NNY 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 March 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 130388 NNY 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 June 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 184024 NNY 10 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 8 September 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 219896 NNY 10 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 120160 NNY 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 February 2025 | Under Review In progress |
| 23 227998 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 20 November 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 130388 NNY 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 March 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 184024 NNY 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 20 June 2017 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 16 219896 NNY 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 8 September 2016 | 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
665 Sheppard Ave W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
23 227998 NNY 06 OZ · submitted 20 November 2023 · Closed · from registration SM34622 (Regency Property Inc.)
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 SM34622: Our Real Estate Development Company - Regency Property Inc. at the development of 665-671 Sheppard Avenue West in North York. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 23 227998 NNY 06 OZ at 665 Sheppard Ave W: The application proposes to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building with 256 residential dwelling units and 209 parking spaces. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Our Real Estate Development Company - Regency Property Inc. at the development of 665-671 Sheppard Avenue West in North York.
Matched fields
- address
- 665-671 SHEPPARD AVE W
- application_address
- 665 SHEPPARD AVE W
665 Sheppard Ave W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
23 227998 NNY 06 OZ · submitted 20 November 2023 · Closed · from registration SM34628 (Reego Xue (Mingxing Xue))
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM34628: Development Applications at 665-671 Sheppard Ave West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 23 227998 NNY 06 OZ at 665 Sheppard Ave W: The application proposes to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building with 256 residential dwelling units and 209 parking spaces. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development Applications at 665-671 Sheppard Ave West.
Matched fields
- address
- 665-671 SHEPPARD AVE W
- application_address
- 665 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.
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.
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.