Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 208392 ESC 20 SA

Ward 20 · Parthi KandavelDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 25 September 2022; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1891 Eglinton Ave E
Ward: Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted: 25 September 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: 568 units; 36,824 m² gross floor area
Related file: 11 325706 ESC 35 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control application to permit Phase 1 of the development at 1891 Eglinton Ave E, which will consist of two mixed-use buildings on the northwest portion of the lands. The western building (Building A) will have a height of 48 storeys (152.5 m. excluding mechanical penthouse), a total Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 36,824 sq. m. (34,170 sq. m. for residential uses, 1,172 sq. m. for retail uses and 1,482 sq. m. for office uses) and 568 residential units. The eastern building (Building B) will have a height of 44 storeys (141.0 m. excluding mechanical penthouse), a total GFA of 31,668 sq. m. (30,577 sq. m. for residential uses, 531 sq. m. for retail uses and and 560 sq. m. for child care uses) and 512 residential units. The buildings will be connected by a base building that ranges in height from two (2) to six (6) storeys. The application proposes a total of 458 parking spaces on three (3) levels below ground, 777 bicycle parking spaces and three (3) loading spaces. This application is related to Official Plan Amendment Application No. 20 158264 ESC 20 OZ (under appeal) and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 20 224755 ESC 20 OZ (under appeal).

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.

Mattamy Homes Limited
SM33049 · 11 March 2022 · “1891 Eglinton Avenue East”
Mattamy Homes Canada
SM32967 · 18 February 2022 · “1891 Eglinton Avenue East”
Myer Betel
SM19851 · 12 November 2013 · “1891 Eglinton Avenue East”
Myer Betel
SM15406 · 15 November 2010 · “1891 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 20

11 lobbied · 34 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 20: 11 lobbied and 34 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	11	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	34	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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.