Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 23 140846 NNY 08 SA
0 Caledonia Rd; 1100 Caledonia Rd; 1120 Caledonia Rd; 1120-1130 Caledonia Rd; 1130 Caledonia Rd; 1150 Caledonia Rd
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 3 May 2023
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 0 Caledonia Rd; 1100 Caledonia Rd; 1120 Caledonia Rd; 1120-1130 Caledonia Rd; 1130 Caledonia Rd; 1150 Caledonia Rd
- Ward
- Ward 8 · Mike Colle
- Submitted
- 3 May 2023
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 43,449 m² gross floor area
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Approval application for two one-storey industrial buildings. The proposed buildings would accommodate warehouse uses with accessory office consisting of 43,449 square metres of gross floor area (GFA) and a floor space index (FSI) of 0.48. A total of 331 parking spaces will be provided with 57 truck trailer spaces and 60 loading bays.
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
OPGI Management GP Inc. · registration SM34668
1100, 1120-1130 & 1150 Caledonia Rd
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM34668: 1100, 1120-1130 & 1150 Caledonia Rd (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 23 140846 NNY 08 SA at 1100 Caledonia Rd: Site Plan Approval application for two one-storey industrial buildings. The proposed buildings would accommodate warehouse uses with accessory office consisting of 43,449 square metres of gross floor area (GFA) and a floor space index (FSI) of 0.48. A total of 331 parking spaces will be provided wi… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1100, 1120-1130 & 1150 Caledonia Rd
Matched fields
- address
- 1130&1150 CALEDONIA RD
- application_address
- 1120-1130 CALEDONIA RD
Oxford Properties Group · registration SM34591
To set up meeting with councillor regarding site. Site plan application City of Toronto 23 140846 NNY 08 SA, regarding site located at 0, 1100, 1120-1130 & 1150 Caledonia Rd.
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM34591: To set up meeting with councillor regarding site. Site plan application City of Toronto 23 140846 NNY 08 SA, regarding site located at 0, 1100, 1120-1130 & 1150 Caledonia Rd. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 23 140846 NNY 08 SA at 1100 Caledonia Rd: Site Plan Approval application for two one-storey industrial buildings. The proposed buildings would accommodate warehouse uses with accessory office consisting of 43,449 square metres of gross floor area (GFA) and a floor space index (FSI) of 0.48. A total of 331 parking spaces will be provided wi… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: To set up meeting with councillor regarding site. Site plan application City of Toronto 23 140846 NNY 08 SA, regarding site located at 0, 1100, 1120-1130 & 1150 Caledonia Rd.
- particulars: …llor regarding site. Site plan application City of Toronto 23 140846 NNY 08 SA, regarding site located at 0, 1100, 1120-1130 & 1150 Caledonia Rd.
Matched fields
- file_number
- 23 140846 NNY 08 SA
- address
- 1130&1150 CALEDONIA RD
- application_address
- 1120-1130 CALEDONIA RD
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
Lobbying on linked registrations
2 linked registrations · 5 communications · 3 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Colle | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 5 September 2023 |
| Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 8 August 2023 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther 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 8
25 lobbied · 69 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 25 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 8% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 69 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 4% | 0.00 |
| 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.