Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 14 172101 NNY 23 SA
2 Forest Laneway; 2 Sheppard Ave E; 4 Forest Laneway; 4-6 Forest Laneway; 6 Forest Laneway; 50 Sheppard Avenue East; 4841-4881 Yonge St
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 11 June 2014
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 2 Forest Laneway; 2 Sheppard Ave E; 4 Forest Laneway; 4-6 Forest Laneway; 6 Forest Laneway; 50 Sheppard Avenue East; 4841-4881 Yonge St
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Submitted
- 11 June 2014
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 13 171700 NNY 23 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Application pertaining to the Site consistent with the Official Plan and Zoning Amending Application.
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.
- RioCan Real Estate Investment TrustSM37909 · 2 September 2026 · “2 Sheppard Avenue East”
- RioCan Real Estate Investment TrustSM26018 · 7 April 2018 · “2 Sheppard Avenue East”
- RK (Sheppard Centre) IncSM21511 · 5 March 2015 · “50 Sheppard Avenue East”
- RK (Sheppard Centre) IncSM21505 · 4 March 2015 · “50 Sheppard Avenue East”
- RK (Sheppard Centre) IncSM21340 · 28 January 2015 · “50 Sheppard Avenue East”
- RioCan Real Estate Investment TrustSM19042 · 12 March 2013 · “2 Sheppard Avenue East”
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 18
18 lobbied · 125 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 18 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 125 | 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=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 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.