lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 25 230280 ESC 25 OZ

3307 Ellesmere Rd; 3313 Ellesmere Rd

Status
Council Approved
Approved
Submitted
24 September 2025
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
3307 Ellesmere Rd; 3313 Ellesmere Rd
Ward
Ward 25 · Neethan Shan
Submitted
24 September 2025
Status
Council Approved
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
256 units; 18,542 m² gross floor area

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

Description

The proposed development is an 11-storey mixed-use rental apartment building which will be marketed toward students with 456.73 square metres retail at grade facing Ellesmere Road. The proposed development will provide a total of 256 rental units, being a mix of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom units, a total GFA of 18,542.03 square metres and a FSI of 5.06. It also provides 51parking spaces and 209 bicycle parking spaces.

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

1 linked registration · 3 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Neethan ShanCouncillor staff2118 December 2025
Neethan ShanMember of council1127 April 2026

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 25

3 lobbied · 4 matched

Hidden: 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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 25: 3 lobbied and 4 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied3Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.