Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 167492 WET 03 SA

12 Cordova Ave; 16 Cordova Ave; 20 Cordova Ave

Ward 3 · Amber MorleyDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 8 June 2021; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 12 Cordova Ave; 16 Cordova Ave; 20 Cordova Ave
Ward: Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted: 8 June 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: 325 units
Related file: 18 257584 WET 05 OZ

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

Description

The proposal consists of a 24-storey residential building (maximum height of approximately 81 metres including a mechanical penthouse/amenity space and mezzanine), with a mid-rise element having a maximum height of 11 storeys (approximately 36 metres) and a maximum 4-storey base building height (approximately 15 metres). A total of 23,549 square metres of residential gross-floor area is proposed with 325 total units, resulting in a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 9.57 times the area of the lot. Parking is proposed in a three level underground parking garage with 178 vehicular parking spaces and 244 bicycle parking spaces.

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.

Minto Communities Inc.
SM27958 · 3 April 2019 · “20 Cordova Avenue”
Minto Communities Inc.
SM27119 · 3 December 2018 · “20 Cordova Avenue”
MUCI ACQ Inc.
SM25621 · 5 February 2018 · “20 Cordova Ave”

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 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied71% n=10

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied29%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied4%

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 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	24	—	100% (n=5)	0%	4%	0.25
Matched, unlobbied	100	—	71% (n=10)	29%	4%	0.14

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.