Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 22 168546 NNY 18 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 27 June 2022
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 5915 Yonge St
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Submitted
- 27 June 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
- 496 units; 66,839 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 22 168547 NNY 18 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Application for the 3rd phase of the Newtonbrook Plaza development. Proposal consisting of a 38-storey mixed-use tower with 496 dwelling units. Total gross floor area of 66,838.9 square metres, consisting of 34,782.0 square metres of residential GFA and 4,215.0 square metres of commercial GFA. Overall density of 4.6 times the area of the entire Newtonbrook redevelopment site. 254 vehicular parking spaces and 405 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. (see 20-209468 NNY 18 SA for phase 2)
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.
- 2591260 Ontario Inc.SM25049 · 15 September 2017 · “5915 Yonge Street”
- Cummer-Yonge Holdings Inc.SM22017 · 9 July 2015 · “5915 Yonge Street”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21939 · 8 June 2015 · “5915 Yonge Street”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21647 · 10 April 2015 · “5915 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 18
18 lobbied · 125 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 18 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 125 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.