Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
130 Harbour St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64102, -79.38147
- 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
4- Submitted 17 February 2017Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 17 118568 STE 20 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 March 2013Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 13 142067 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 1 October 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 256067 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 December 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 329885 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 118568 STE 20 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 17 February 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 142067 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 28 March 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 256067 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 1 October 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 329885 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 December 2011 | 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
130 Harbour St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
13 142067 STE 20 SA · submitted 28 March 2013 · Closed · from registration SM18228 (Deltera Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM18228: Rezing and Site Plan Approvals for 10 York St. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 142067 STE 20 SA at 130 Harbour St: Site Plan Approval for a mixed use development at 120, 130 Harbour Street and 10 York Street. The application is for a residential tower for 66 storeys wit a total of 694 dwelling units, retail at grade and a total of 289 parking spaces. This file is associated with the rezoning application under f… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezing and Site Plan Approvals for 10 York St.
Matched fields
- address
- 10 YORK ST
- application_address
- 10 YORK ST
130 Harbour St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 329885 STE 20 OZ · submitted 22 December 2011 · Closed · from registration SM18194 (Delnova Developments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
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 SM18194: 120 Harbour Street/10 York Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 329885 STE 20 OZ at 130 Harbour St: Rezoning application to construct a mixed use development at 120 and 130 Harbour Street and 10 York Street. The application is for a residential tower with a 4 storey podium and a proposed tower of approximately 65 storeys or 224 metres including mechanical (originally 75 storeys or 253.4 metres in… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 120 Harbour Street/10 York Street
Matched fields
- address
- 120 HARBOUR ST
- application_address
- 120 HARBOUR ST
130 Harbour St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 329885 STE 20 OZ · submitted 22 December 2011 · Closed · from registration SM18228 (Deltera Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM18228: Rezing and Site Plan Approvals for 10 York St. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 329885 STE 20 OZ at 130 Harbour St: Rezoning application to construct a mixed use development at 120 and 130 Harbour Street and 10 York Street. The application is for a residential tower with a 4 storey podium and a proposed tower of approximately 65 storeys or 224 metres including mechanical (originally 75 storeys or 253.4 metres in… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezing and Site Plan Approvals for 10 York St.
Matched fields
- address
- 10 YORK ST
- application_address
- 10 YORK 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.