Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 139777 NNY 15 SA

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

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 13 April 2021; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 939 Eglinton Ave E
Ward: Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
Submitted: 13 April 2021
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 3 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 3 includes Building C which has a height of 30 storeys and 92.5 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-Felcorp
SM27655 · 15 February 2019 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Upper Eastside Building Group Inc.
SM26550 · 24 July 2018 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Diamondcorp
SM24267 · 26 March 2017 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2
SM22499 · 17 November 2015 · “939 Eglinton Avenue East”
Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2
SM18293 · 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 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.