Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 23 121048 WET 02 SA

Ward 2 · Stephen HolydayDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 8 March 2023; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 250 Wincott Dr; 4620 Eglinton Ave W
Ward: Ward 2 · Stephen Holyday
Submitted: 8 March 2023
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 23 101352 WET 02 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Application - Redevelopment of the subject site with three new mixed-use buildings of 22, 31 and 13 storeys (Buildings A, B and C, respectively) in addition to the partial retention and renovation of the existing commercial plaza building (Building D). This Site Plan Application is for Phase 3 consisting of Buildings A and B. Phase 1 and 2 of the site consists of Buildings C and D and part of Site Plan Appliction No. 22 136287 WET 02 SA

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.

Trinity Development Group Inc.
SM36644 · 26 May 2025 · “250 Wincott Drive”
Trinity Development Group Inc.
SM31594 · 16 April 2021 · “250 Wincott Drive”
Trinity Development Group Inc.
SM31594 · 16 April 2021 · “4620 Eglinton Avenue West”
Trinity Development Group Inc.
SM22981 · 8 April 2016 · “250 Wincott Dr.”
Trinity Development Group Inc.
SM22091 · 4 August 2015 · “250 Wincott Drive.”
Trinity Development Group Inc.
SM22096 · 27 July 2015 · “250 Wincott Drive”

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 2

5 lobbied · 15 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 2: 5 lobbied and 15 matched unlobbied applications in 4 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	15	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.