Development application · Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
Development application 21 208865 ESC 20 SB
1 Eglinton Sq; 14 Engelhart Cres; 18 Engelhart Cres; 19 Engelhart Cres; 22 Engelhart Cres; 23 Engelhart Cres; 26 Engelhart Cres; 64 Harris Park Dr; 68 Harris Park Dr; 1431 Victoria Park Ave; 1437 Victoria Park Ave
- Status
- Appeal Received
- In progress
- Submitted
- 7 September 2021
- Appealed
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)
- Addresses
- 1 Eglinton Sq; 14 Engelhart Cres; 18 Engelhart Cres; 19 Engelhart Cres; 22 Engelhart Cres; 23 Engelhart Cres; 26 Engelhart Cres; 64 Harris Park Dr; 68 Harris Park Dr; 1431 Victoria Park Ave; 1437 Victoria Park Ave
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Submitted
- 7 September 2021
- Status
- Appeal Received
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- Yes
- Related file
- 16 230579 ESC 35 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Draft Plan of Subdivision application for the lands at 1 and 70 Eglinton Sq, and 1431 and 1437 Victoria Park Ave to create five (5) development blocks, including two (2) blocks for public parkland purposes, and new public streets. This application is related to Official Plan Amendment Application No. 16 230579 ESC 35 OZ and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 17 242390 ESC 35 OZ.
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.
- Kingsett CapitalSM29236 · 25 November 2019 · “26 Engelhart Crescent”
- Kingsett CapitalSM25575 · 24 January 2018 · “26 Engelhart Crescent”
- Kingsett CapitalSM24826 · 10 July 2017 · “1 Eglinton Square”
- Kingsett CapitalSM22695 · 22 January 2016 · “1 Eglinton Square”
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 20
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.