Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 11 176003 ESC 37 SA

1970 Eglinton Ave E; 1972 Eglinton Ave E

Ward 21 · Michael ThompsonDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 15 April 2011; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1970 Eglinton Ave E; 1972 Eglinton Ave E
Ward: Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted: 15 April 2011
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 09 104879 ESC 37 OZ

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

Description

RioCan has submitted a site plan application to re-demise the existing vacant Rona building with two new tenants, LA Fitness and Oriental Foods. LA Fitness will be located on the west portion of the building and use 4,262 m2 of the building's area and Oriental Foods will use 6,395 m2. Approximately 2,973 m2 of the building will be demolished on the Oriental Foods unit and this will create a step in the building. This application also includes the removal of the overhanging canopy located at the eastern part of the building and the re-alignement of the drive aisle so it lines up with the drive aisle in front of the adjacent Zellers store.

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 21

10 lobbied · 44 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 21: 10 lobbied and 44 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	10	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	44	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.