Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 19 206988 NNY 16 SA

1 Kyle Lowry Rd; 1 Quarrington Lane; 5 Quarrington Lane; 844 Don Mills Rd

Ward 16 · Jon BurnsideDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: NOAC Issued; Approved
Submitted: 16 August 2019; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 2; 2 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1 Kyle Lowry Rd; 1 Quarrington Lane; 5 Quarrington Lane; 844 Don Mills Rd
Ward: Ward 16 · Jon Burnside
Submitted: 16 August 2019
Status: NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded: Approved
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
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

This is the first application (Blocks 1A & 1B) for Site Plan Control related to the redevelopment of the former Celestica lands, now known as Crosstown. This application proposes the construction of a nine storey office building having a daycare, retail uses at-grade, and a connection to the future Eglinton LRT Science Centre Station. A public plaza, which will be subject to a POPS easement, is proposed west of the building.

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

Aspen Ridge Homes · registration SM27646
RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM27646: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 206988 NNY 16 SA at 844 Don Mills Rd: This is the first application (Blocks 1A & 1B) for Site Plan Control related to the redevelopment of the former Celestica lands, now known as Crosstown. This application proposes the construction of a nine storey office building having a daycare, retail uses at-grade, and a connection to the future… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd.
- particulars: RE the development of 1150 Eglinton Ave. East and 844 Don Mills Rd.
Matched fields
address
844 DON MILLS RD
application_address
844 DON MILLS RD

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Ward 16 Don Valley East2

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 16 Don Valley East	Member of council	2	2	6 May 2019

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”
Diamondcorp
SM24272 · 27 March 2017 · “844 Don Mills Road”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 3
SM22668 · 15 January 2016 · “844 Don Mills Road”
Diamondcorp
SM21669 · 14 April 2015 · “844 Don Mills Road”
Diamondcorp
SM21606 · 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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 16

10 lobbied · 23 matched

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 16: 10 lobbied and 23 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	10	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	23	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.