Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
220 King St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64746, -79.38713
- 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
1These 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.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 2 Councillor Cressy | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 10 May 2016 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22923 | 220 King Street West GP Inc. | 220 King Street West | Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance | 29 March 2016 – 31 August 2016 | 2 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 5 November 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 234759 STE 10 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 7 June 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 166710 STE 10 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 10 December 2020Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 20 227738 STE 10 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 16 December 2016Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1242/16TEYClosed · Approved
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 234759 STE 10 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 5 November 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 166710 STE 10 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 7 June 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 20 227738 STE 10 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 10 December 2020 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| A1242/16TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 16 December 2016 | Closed Approved |
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
212 King St W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
21 166710 STE 10 SA · submitted 7 June 2021 · Under Review · from registration SM28901 (Dream Asset Management Corporation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM28901: Planning and Development Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law and applicable municipal policies, bylaw's and regulations for 212-220 King St W (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 166710 STE 10 SA at 212 King St W: Site Plan approval for an 80-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gorss floor area of 75,002.35 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 41,861.86 square metres. A total of 588 purpose built rental units are proposed. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …t Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law and applicable municipal policies, bylaw's and regulations for 212-220 King St W
Matched fields
- address
- 212-220 KING ST W
- application_address
- 212 KING ST W
214 King St W · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
20 227738 STE 10 OZ · submitted 10 December 2020 · OMB Appeal · from registration SM28901 (Dream Asset Management Corporation)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM28901: Planning and Development Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law and applicable municipal policies, bylaw's and regulations for 212-220 King St W (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 227738 STE 10 OZ at 214 King St W: Proposal for an 80-storey mixed-use building containing 569 rental dwelling units (down from 588 in the initial application). The proposed building will have a non-residential gross floor area of 81,535 square metres (up from 75,002 square metres) and a residential gross floor area of 38,679 square… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: …t Application for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law and applicable municipal policies, bylaw's and regulations for 212-220 King St W
Matched fields
- address
- 212-220 KING ST W
- application_address
- 212 KING ST W
220 King St W · Minor variance (MV)
A1242/16TEY · submitted 16 December 2016 · Closed · from registration SM22923 (220 King Street West GP 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 SM22923: 220 King Street West, Toronto, ON (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A1242/16TEY at 220 King St W: To construct an accessory structure in the rear patio area in lieu of an existing loading space. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 220 King Street West, Toronto, ON
Matched fields
- address
- 220 KING ST W
- application_address
- 220 KING ST W
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 Subdivision (SB), Ward 10
1 lobbied · 8 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 8 | 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 | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.
Committee of Adjustment 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.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 10
20 lobbied · 261 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | 136 | 100% (n=20) | 0% | 0% | 14% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 261 | 138 | 93% (n=214) | 7% | 5% | 18% |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
Submission to hearing. 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.