lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 20 110316 NNY 17 SA

680 Sheppard Ave E; 688 Sheppard Ave E

Status
Appeal Received
In progress
Submitted
30 January 2020
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
10
7 meetings · 3 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
680 Sheppard Ave E; 688 Sheppard Ave E
Ward
Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
Submitted
30 January 2020
Status
Appeal Received
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Size stated in the description
487 units; 38,349 m² gross floor area
Related file
19 248099 NNY 17 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

Site Plan application for the proposal of a 22 storey residential building with a 8 -13 storey mid-rise component and a 6-8 storey podium along Sheppard Avenue East containing 487 residential units, including 35 rental replacement units. The total Gross Floor Area is 38,349 square metres of which 616 square metres is proposed for a new day nursery. A park of 747 square metres has also been proposed on site. A Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application is was submitted concurrently (19 248116 NNY RH).

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

3 linked registrations · 10 communications · 7 meetings · 3 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 4 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 17 Don Valley NorthMember of council443 September 2019
Shelley CarrollCouncillor staff3119 April 2022
Shelley CarrollMember of council2216 June 2025
Shelley CarrollCouncillor staff1015 April 2024

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

None.

Comparison with similar 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 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 17: 14 lobbied and 20 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied14Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied20Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.