Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 269688 WET 06 SA

Ward 3 · Amber MorleyDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: NOAC Issued; Approved
Submitted: 21 December 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 3526 Lake Shore Blvd W
Ward: Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted: 21 December 2016
Status: NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded: Approved
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 509 units
Related file: 15 170337 WET 06 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 the construction of 509 residential units in a series of standard and stacked townhouse blocks and to permit retail uses along the Lake Shore Boulevard West frontage.Associated with the Zoning By-law Amendment application (File Number 15 170337 WET 06 OZ) and Draft Plan of Subdivision application (File Number 15 173350 WET 06 SB).The site specific zoning amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code was approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal on June 25, 2022.

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.

Minto Communities Inc.
SM27968 · 4 April 2019 · “3526 Lake Shore Blvd. West”
Minto Communities Inc.
SM27007 · 14 November 2018 · “3526 Lake Shore Blvd. West”

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 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied70% n=10

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied30%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied4%

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 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	24	—	100% (n=5)	0%	4%	0.25
Matched, unlobbied	100	1,629	70% (n=10)	30%	4%	0.14

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.