Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 25 197844 STE 11 SA

130 Elizabeth St; 604 Bay St; 610 Bay St

Ward 11 · Dianne SaxeDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: NOAC Issued; Approved
Submitted: 22 July 2025; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 130 Elizabeth St; 604 Bay St; 610 Bay St
Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted: 22 July 2025
Status: NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded: Approved
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 827 units
Related file: 25 133694 STE 11 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval for a 15-storey building at 604-610 Bay Street and a 43-storey building at 130 Elizabeth Street. The proposed development integrates the designated heritage Coach Terminal building and includes 2,219 square metres of retail space and 4,717 square metres of institutional space for a Toronto Paramedic Services facility and office uses in the lower levels of the buildings, and 827 purpose-built rental dwelling units, including 210 affordable units, above. This is one of eight sites under the City of Toronto's ModernTO initiative.

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.

None.

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 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=12

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied9%
Matched, unlobbied2%

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 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	46	—	100% (n=2)	0%	9%	0.09
Matched, unlobbied	113	1,629	100% (n=12)	0%	2%	0.02

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.