Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 19 256766 ESC 24 SA
0 Corporate Dr; 5 Corporate Dr
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 3 December 2019
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 0 Corporate Dr; 5 Corporate Dr
- Ward
- Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
- Submitted
- 3 December 2019
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 778 units; 69,002 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 20 160281 ESC 24 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
The application proposes to redevelop the subject lands (Block B) with two rental apartment buildings of 38-storeys (Building B1) and 44-storeys (Building B2), connected by a 4-storey podium. The proposed development would have a total gross floor area of 69,002 square metres consisting of 68,277 square metres of residential uses and 725 square metres of retail/commercial space. The application proposes a total of 778 residential units. A total of 533 vehicular and 679 bicycle parking spaces would be provided to service the proposed development. A landscape courtyard and promenade has been incorporated in the proposal to connect the proposed development to the existing buildings at 100, 200 and 300 Consilium Place.
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.
None.
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 24
6 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 | 6 | 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.