Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 21 245354 STE 10 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 6 December 2021
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 1 Yonge St; 7 Yonge St
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 6 December 2021
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 20 152435 STE 10 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Approval for Phase 4 & 5 of the One Yonge Development, consisting of two non-residential towers having heights of 22 and 40-storeys, respectively. There is an associated Official Plan and and Zoning By-law amendment application to revise the approved OPA and ZBA as it relates to the southerly parcel (phase 4 and 5) to allow for the inclusion of a hotel use within Phase 4 of the redevelopment, as well as changes to the proposal including the addition of a pedestrian bridge between Towers 4 and 5. application 20 152435 STE 10 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.
- Pinnacle InternationalSM34316 · 27 March 2023 · “1 Yonge St”
- Pinnacle International (Seven Yonge) Ltd.SM26905 · 26 October 2018 · “7 Yonge Street”
- Pinnacle InternationalSM26093 · 20 April 2018 · “7 Yonge Street”
- Mondiale Development LTD.SM18725 · 5 December 2012 · “1 Yonge Street”
- Pinnacle Internation GroupSM18743 · 3 December 2012 · “1 Yonge Street”
- Pinnacle InternationalSM18737 · 30 November 2012 · “1 Yonge Street”
- Pinnacle InternationalSM18712 · 23 November 2012 · “1 Yonge Street”
- Osmington Inc.SM17882 · 8 March 2012 · “1 Yonge Street”
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.