Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
122 Peter St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64802, -79.39338
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 8 October 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 223874 STE 10 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 June 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 178384 STE 10 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 23 November 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 255425 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 223874 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 8 October 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 178384 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 30 June 2021 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 15 255425 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 November 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
122 Peter St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 178384 STE 10 SA · submitted 30 June 2021 · NOAC Issued · from registration SM25383 (Fortress Carlyle Peter Street Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.70
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM25383: Proposed mixed-use development at 120-128 Peter Street and 357-359 Richmond Street West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 178384 STE 10 SA at 122 Peter St: Site Plan Approval for a 39 storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 878 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 21,338.84 square metres. A total of 374 residential dwelling units are proposed. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed mixed-use development at 120-128 Peter Street and 357-359 Richmond Street West.
Matched fields
- address
- 120-128 PETER ST
- application_address
- 128 PETER ST
122 Peter St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 255425 STE 20 OZ · submitted 23 November 2015 · Closed · from registration SM21960 (Berkley Developments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM21960: 122-128 Peter Street and 357 Richmond Street West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 255425 STE 20 OZ at 122 Peter St: This application has been appealed to the Ontario Muncipal Board by the applicant. This submission is a settlement proposal proposed by the applicant. A mediation meeting has been scheduled by the Ontario Municipal Board for Februrary 12, and 13, 2018. The settlement proposal adds the property at 3… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 122-128 Peter Street and 357 Richmond Street West
Matched fields
- address
- 122-128 PETER ST
- application_address
- 122 PETER ST
122 Peter St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 255425 STE 20 OZ · submitted 23 November 2015 · Closed · from registration SM25383 (Fortress Carlyle Peter Street Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM25383: Proposed mixed-use development at 120-128 Peter Street and 357-359 Richmond Street West. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 255425 STE 20 OZ at 122 Peter St: This application has been appealed to the Ontario Muncipal Board by the applicant. This submission is a settlement proposal proposed by the applicant. A mediation meeting has been scheduled by the Ontario Municipal Board for Februrary 12, and 13, 2018. The settlement proposal adds the property at 3… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed mixed-use development at 120-128 Peter Street and 357-359 Richmond Street West.
Matched fields
- address
- 120-128 PETER ST
- application_address
- 128 PETER ST
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 10
4 lobbied · 25 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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 25 | 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 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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 10
88 lobbied · 94 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 88 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 10% | 0.03 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 94 | — | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 5% | 0.01 |
| 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.