Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 139638 WET 07 SA

1 Fountainhead Rd; 35 Fountainhead Rd; 40 Fountainhead Rd; 470 Sentinel Rd

Ward 7 · Anthony PerruzzaDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 28 April 2022; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1 Fountainhead Rd; 35 Fountainhead Rd; 40 Fountainhead Rd; 470 Sentinel Rd
Ward: Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
Submitted: 28 April 2022
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 1,720 units; 256,064 m² gross floor area
Related file: 21 251925 WET 07 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application for a proposed infill development at 470 Sentinel Road and 1, 35 and 40 Fountainhead Road. The proposal includes four new buildings consisting of three residential buildings of 36 storeys, 30 storeys, and 14 storeys (112.85 metres, 95.45 metres, and 47.65 metres respectively, including the mechanical penthouse) and one 40-storey mixed-use building (125.5 metres including the mechanical penthouse). The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 256,064 square metres consisting of 127,452 square metres of residential area (1,720 dwelling units), and 1,050 square metres of retail area located at grade fronting on Sentinel Road. The proposal also includes the provision for public parkland of 0.56 hectares and a two-storey community centre. The four existing 22-storey apartment buildings containing a total of 1,479 dwelling units are proposed to be retained. Associated with 21 251925 WET 07 OZ and 21 251918 WET 07 SB.

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.

Ranee Management
SM32852 · 19 January 2022 · “40 Fountainhead Road”
Ranee Management
SM32852 · 19 January 2022 · “470 Sentinel Road”
EL-AD GROUP (CANADA) INC
SM10268 · 11 February 2008 · “40 Fountainhead Road”
EL-AD GROUP (CANADA) INC
SM10268 · 11 February 2008 · “470 Sentinel Road”

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 7

5 lobbied · 28 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 7: 5 lobbied and 28 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	5	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	28	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.