Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 10 317380 WET 12 SA

Ward 5 · Frances NunziataDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 20 December 2010; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 2 Keelesdale Rd; 25 Photography Dr
Ward: Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
Submitted: 20 December 2010
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 10 317381 WET 12 OZ

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

Description

Proposal to permit the construction of a 60m2 gasoline bar (also referred to as Vehicle Fuel Station) on the vacant portion of the No Frills site.

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.

CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited
SM36497 · 31 March 2025 · “25 Photography Drive”
CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited
SM36481 · 25 March 2025 · “25 Photography Drive”
Choice Properties
SM34171 · 6 February 2023 · “25 Photography Drive”
Choice Properties
SM31130 · 15 January 2021 · “25 Photography Drive”
Choice Properties
SM31122 · 14 January 2021 · “25 Photography Drive.”
Choice Properties
SM31068 · 5 January 2021 · “25 Photography Drive.”
Choice Properties
SM31000 · 16 December 2020 · “25 Photography Drive.”
Choice Properties
SM31001 · 16 December 2020 · “25 Photography Drive.”

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 5

15 lobbied · 40 matched

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 5: 15 lobbied and 40 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	15	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	40	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.