Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 19 143856 NNY 15 SA

Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos LinDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: NOAC Issued; Approved
Submitted: 24 April 2019; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 660 Eglinton Ave E
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 24 April 2019
Status: NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded: Approved
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 14 267342 NNY 26 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

In December 2014, RioCan made application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (file no. 14-267342 NNY 26 OZ) to permit a mix use development at the Property that was primarily mid-rise in scale, with two taller elements of 19 and 13 storeys each on a continuous 8-storey podium.

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.

Concert Properties Ltd
SM35565 · 7 May 2024 · “660 Eglinton Avenue East”
RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust
SM26015 · 7 April 2018 · “660 Eglinton Ave. E.”
Concert Properties Ltd
SM25428 · 29 November 2017 · “660 Eglinton Avenue East.”
RioCan Management (Sunnybrook) Inc.
SM23479 · 29 August 2016 · “660 Eglinton Avenue East”
RioCan Holdings (Sunnybrook) Inc.
SM23480 · 29 August 2016 · “660 Eglinton Avenue East”
RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust
SM20340 · 22 April 2014 · “660 Eglinton Ave. E.”

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 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 15: 12 lobbied and 41 matched unlobbied applications in 10 matched strata
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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.