Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 22 131744 WET 03 SA

23 Park Lawn Rd; 2150 Lake Shore Blvd W; 2194 Lake Shore Blvd W

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

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 7 April 2022; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 23 Park Lawn Rd; 2150 Lake Shore Blvd W; 2194 Lake Shore Blvd W
Ward: Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted: 7 April 2022
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 20 146488 WET 03 OZ

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

Description

The proposed Phase 1 development

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.

First capital Realty
SM27650 · 14 February 2019 · “2150 Lake Shore Blvd West”
First capital Realty
SM27149 · 12 December 2018 · “2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West”
First capital Realty
SM27152 · 12 December 2018 · “2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West”
First Capital Asset Management
SM27308 · 10 December 2018 · “2150 Lake Shore Blvd West”
First Capital Holdings Trust (Ontario) Inc.
SM24560 · 12 May 2017 · “2150 Lake Shore Blvd West”
First Capital Holdings Trust (Ontario) Inc.
SM24560 · 12 May 2017 · “23 Park Lawn Road”
First capital Realty
SM23889 · 10 January 2017 · “2150 Lake Shore Blvd. West”
The Rosethorn Company
SM23107 · 1 June 2016 · “2150 Lake Shore Blvd West”
Kraft Canada Inc.
SM14108 · 1 February 2010 · “2150 Lake Shore Blvd. W.”

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

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied71% n=10

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied29%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

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	—	71% (n=10)	29%	4%	0.14

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.