Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Development application 16 236405 NNY 26 SB
- Status
- Final Approval Completed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 12 October 2016
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
- Addresses
- 844 Don Mills Rd
- Ward
- Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
- Submitted
- 12 October 2016
- Status
- Final Approval Completed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 4,921 units
- Related file
- 16 236387 NNY 26 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
To permit the redevelopment of the 60 acre subject site into a new community consisting of: office buildings (including the retention of the Celestica headquarters); commercial and retail space; 4,921 residential units within a range of building types including tall buildings, mid-rise buildings and low-rise town houses; land for a community centre, new public roads, open spaces and parks.The proposal will be developed in phases, in conjunction with the Don Mills Crossing Study. The Study is a comprehensive review of the anticipated growth around the intersection of Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East and builds on the work of Eglinton Connects. The Study will result in a new planning framework which will include implementation measures to support co-ordinated development of employment, residential and community uses. The current application is a revision to the May 2014 Official Plan Amendment application (14 153614 NNY 26 OZ) and submission of new Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.
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.
- Don Mills (ARH) Homes Ltd.SM34566 · 15 June 2023 · “844 Don Mills Road”
- Aspen Ridge HomesSM27646 · 14 February 2019 · “844 Don Mills Rd.”
- DiamondcorpSM24272 · 27 March 2017 · “844 Don Mills Road”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 3SM22668 · 15 January 2016 · “844 Don Mills Road”
- DiamondcorpSM21669 · 14 April 2015 · “844 Don Mills Road”
- DiamondcorpSM21606 · 29 March 2015 · “844 Don Mills Road”
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 16
2 lobbied · 4 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 4 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.