Address · Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
6 Lloyd Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
- Location
- 43.67178, -79.46546
- How this address was located
- Matched exactly to a City of Toronto address point.
Sources: City of Toronto Lobbyist Registry, Development Applications, Committee of Adjustment Applications and Address Points (open data). Lobbyist Registry · Development Applications · Committee of Adjustment · Address Points
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
6These registrations name this address in their particulars, after the address was standardised (street type and direction abbreviations). This is a text match, not an inferred link.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 14 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 11 York South-Weston | Member of council | 14 | 13 | 22 September 2017 |
| Office of Councillor Nunziata, Ward 11 | Councillor staff | 11 | 2 | 30 April 2015 |
| Office of Councillor Nunziata - Ward 11 | Councillor staff | 4 | 2 | 1 May 2015 |
| Ward 5 York South-Weston | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 3 March 2020 |
| Councillor Nunziata | Councillor staff | 2 | 2 | 3 March 2020 |
| Office of Councillor Nunziata | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 21 March 2018 |
| Frances Nunziata | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 12 February 2020 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 13 March 2015 |
| Mayor's office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 13 March 2015 |
| Ward 17 Davenport | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 12 April 2017 |
| Ward 2 Etobicoke North | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 12 December 2012 |
| Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 21 November 2013 |
| Frances Nunziata | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 5 August 2025 |
| Frances Nunziata | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 5 August 2025 |
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM36834 | Carlyle Communities Inc. | 6 Lloyd Avenue | Planning and Development Application; Zoning By-law | 31 July 2025 – 16 August 2027 | 2 |
| SM25067 | Carlyle Communities Inc. | 6 Lloyd Avenue. | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 22 September 2017 – 1 June 2027 | 9 |
| SM24933 | Rockport Homes Limited | 6 Lloyd Ave | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 1 August 2017 – 31 December 2017 | 2 |
| SM19872 | 2053785 Ontario Inc. | 6 Lloyd Avenue. | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 21 November 2013 – 21 September 2017 | 16 |
| SM21740 | Stanton Renaissance | 6 Lloyd Avenue. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 18 March 2013 – 31 December 2017 | 13 |
| SM18744 | 2053785 Ontario Inc. | 6 Lloyd Ave | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 4 December 2012 – 1 April 2015 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 30 September 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 220130 WET 05 CDUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 28 June 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 176811 WET 05 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 22 October 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 239452 WET 05 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 16 December 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 278533 WET 11 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 220130 WET 05 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 30 September 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 176811 WET 05 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 28 June 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 19 239452 WET 05 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 October 2019 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 13 278533 WET 11 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 December 2013 | OMB Appeal In progress |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Development 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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 5
2 lobbied · 3 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 3 | 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 | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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.
Development 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 5
15 lobbied · 40 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 15 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 40 | 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=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.
Development 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 5
12 lobbied · 17 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
571 lobbied · 760 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 17 | 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 | 571 | — | 100% (n=78) | 0% | 12% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 760 | — | 96% (n=78) | 4% | 14% | 0.05 |
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.