Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 19 202364 ESC 20 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 8 August 2019
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 43 Upton Rd; 43R Upton Rd
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Submitted
- 8 August 2019
- 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 · City application page
Description
The applicant had NOAC issued, however, it was not executed and the NOAC expired as the owner sold the business. The new Owner started a new SPA file with a new proposal (2021 250985 ESC 20 SA). This new owner also sold the business in the middle of the review of the above SPA file. The current new owner now wants to reactivate the original expired NOAC (2019 202364 ESC 20 SA) and close the previous Owner's file (2021 250985 ESC 20 SA). A new NOAC is required and the new applicant has resubmitted all materials for review.The application proposes to redevelop the site by replacing the existing building with a new industrial building comprising of a 1-storey (with a mezzanine) office component and a warehouse having a gross floor area of 522 and 5,110 square metres respectively. A total of 68 vehicular parking spaces and 1 loading space will be provided.
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 20
11 lobbied · 34 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 | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | 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.