Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 08 120083 NNY 33 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 18 March 2008
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 500 Consumers Rd
- Ward
- Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
- Submitted
- 18 March 2008
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
The owners are pursuing the construction of a fuel cell system as part of a co-generation facility. This fuel cell will be integrated with the natural gas pipeline on the site. The uses on the site include: general office, general warehouse and mechanical services. The site currently has 6 structures as follows: a mechanical services building (area of 3 325 m²); a single storey industrial/warehouse building (area of 8 145 m²); and a five storey office building (area of 3 603 m²). There are also existing mechanical buildings lcoated at the north-east corner of the property which include: an electrical substation (area of 58.1 m²); a turbo expander and related structures (area of 89.7 m²); and heating plant/regulator building (area of 48.4 m²). A large surface parking lot is located to the rear of the office, mechanical services and industrial/warehouse buildings.
Linked lobbying registrations
No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.
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 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 | 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=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.