Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 20 105668 NNY 06 SA
38 Maniza Rd; 40 Maniza Rd; 60 Maniza Rd; 73 Plewes Rd; 77 Plewes Rd; 79 Plewes Rd
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 17 January 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 38 Maniza Rd; 40 Maniza Rd; 60 Maniza Rd; 73 Plewes Rd; 77 Plewes Rd; 79 Plewes Rd
- Ward
- Ward 6 · James Pasternak
- Submitted
- 17 January 2020
- 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
1) January 20. 2020: To amend the existing approved Site Plan 09 108730 NNY SA and Site Plan Agreement (dated Jan. 17, 2011) to add school ancillary play areas, relocate school ancillary play areas, and relocate the school ancillary parking area for St. Norbert Catholic Elementary School. The new school ancillary play areas and new school ancillary parking area are to be located on adjacent lands acquired by the tcdsb. 2) January 25. 2022: To amend the existing approved Site Plan 09 108730 NNY SA and Site Plan Agreement (dated Jan. 17, 2011) to add school ancillary play areas, relocate school ancillary play areas, and relocate the school ancillary parking area for St. Norbert Catholic Elementary School. The new school ancillary play areas and new school ancillary parking area are to be located on adjacent lands acquired by the tcdsb.
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 6
17 lobbied · 41 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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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.