Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 26 216899 WET 02 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 10 August 2026
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 240 Markland Dr
- Ward
- Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
- Submitted
- 10 August 2026
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 21 139675 WET 02 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Site Plan Administrative application in relation to 21 139675 WET 02 SA.
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.
- CartteraSM30372 · 23 July 2020 · “240 Markland Drive”
- CartteraSM30322 · 14 July 2020 · “240 Markland Drive”
- Windsor Property ManagementSM24347 · 11 April 2017 · “240 Markland Dr.”
- S-K Sportswear LimitedSM21701 · 17 April 2015 · “240 Markland Drive”
- Windsor Property ManagementSM21435 · 13 February 2015 · “240 Markland Drive”
- Windsor Property ManagementSM18249 · 5 July 2012 · “240 Markland Drive”
- Windsor Property ManagementSM17357 · 6 October 2011 · “240 Markland Drive”
- Windsor Property ManagementSM16988 · 24 August 2011 · “240 Markland Drive”
- Windsor Property ManagementSM12207 · 3 September 2008 · “240 Markland Drive”
- Windsor Property ManagementSM12209 · 29 August 2008 · “240 Markland Drive”
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 2
5 lobbied · 15 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 15 | 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.