Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 17 278161 NNY 26 SA
33 Frederick Todd Way; 36 Brentcliffe Rd; 42 Brentcliffe Rd; 925 Eglinton Ave E; 939 Eglinton Ave E
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 21 December 2017
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 33 Frederick Todd Way; 36 Brentcliffe Rd; 42 Brentcliffe Rd; 925 Eglinton Ave E; 939 Eglinton Ave E
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Submitted
- 21 December 2017
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 514 units; 51,300 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 15 141830 NNY 26 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan application to permit phase 1 and phase 2 of the 3 phase development. A total of 51,300 square metres of GFA (49,093 square metres of residential and 2,207 square metres of non-residential), 514 residential units and 516 parking spaces is proposed. Phase 1 includes Building A which has a height of 68.65 metres and Building B with a height of 56.5 metres.
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.
- Camrost-FelcorpSM27655 · 15 February 2019 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Upper Eastside Building Group Inc.SM26550 · 24 July 2018 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
- DiamondcorpSM24267 · 26 March 2017 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM22499 · 17 November 2015 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
- Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2SM18293 · 25 July 2012 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
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 15
12 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 12 | 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=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.