lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 176811 WET 05 SA

6 Lloyd Ave; 161 Mulock Ave; 163 Mulock Ave; 165 Mulock Ave; 167 Mulock Ave; 169 Mulock Ave; 171 Mulock Ave; 175 Mulock Ave; 177 Mulock Ave; 179 Mulock Ave; 181 Mulock Ave; 195 Mulock Ave

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
28 June 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
6 Lloyd Ave; 161 Mulock Ave; 163 Mulock Ave; 165 Mulock Ave; 167 Mulock Ave; 169 Mulock Ave; 171 Mulock Ave; 175 Mulock Ave; 177 Mulock Ave; 179 Mulock Ave; 181 Mulock Ave; 195 Mulock Ave
Ward
Ward 5 · Frances Nunziata
Submitted
28 June 2021
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
535 units; 53,072 m² gross floor area
Related file
19 239452 WET 05 OZ

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

Description

To permit a mixed use development that would include one north residential building (stepping up to 15-storeys (47.2 metres)) and one south residential building (stepping up to 17-storeys (53.1 metres)) connected by a podium (4-storeys (12.75 metres)) as well as one office building (8-storeys (32.1 metres)). The proposal would include a total gross floor area of 53,072 square metres, of which 43,736 square metres would be for residential space, 7,730 square metres for office space, 1,225 square metres for retail use, and 372 square metres (381 square metres including the vestibule) for community agency space. This site would contain a total of 535 new residential units, of which 525 would be condominium units and 10 would be Affordable Ownership units. A total of 358 vehicular parking spaces are proposed within a 4-level above grade parking garage that would be located along the rail corridor. In addition, a 868 square metres new public park is proposed.

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.

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 5

15 lobbied · 40 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 5: 15 lobbied and 40 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied15Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied40Hidden: 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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.