Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
327 King St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64613, -79.39109
- 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 24 July 2023Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 23 178836 STE 10 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 April 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 137504 STE 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 May 2010Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 10 182677 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 178836 STE 10 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 24 July 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 137504 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 April 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 10 182677 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 May 2010 | 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
327 King St W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 137504 STE 20 SA · submitted 3 April 2018 · Closed · from registration SM24919 (Empire Communities (321 King Residences Inc.) Ltd.)
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 SM24919: approval development application (321 King St West / 321 King Residences St.) (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 137504 STE 20 SA at 327 King St W: Third submission for Site Plan Control application for a new 49-storey mixed-use building with ground floor commercial and 327 dwelling units. See also associated Zoning Amendment application (file no. 10 182677 STE 20 OZ). The project includes heritage retention of the facdes of the designated bui… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: approval development application (321 King St West / 321 King Residences St.)
Matched fields
- address
- 321 KING ST W
- application_address
- 321 KING ST W
327 King St W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 137504 STE 20 SA · submitted 3 April 2018 · Closed · from registration SM24923 (Empire Communities (321 King Residences Inc.) Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.75
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 SM24923: Approval development application (321 King St West, Toronto / 321 King Residences Inc.) (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 137504 STE 20 SA at 327 King St W: Third submission for Site Plan Control application for a new 49-storey mixed-use building with ground floor commercial and 327 dwelling units. See also associated Zoning Amendment application (file no. 10 182677 STE 20 OZ). The project includes heritage retention of the facdes of the designated bui… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Approval development application (321 King St West, Toronto / 321 King Residences Inc.)
Matched fields
- address
- 321 KING ST W
- application_address
- 321 KING ST W
327 King St W · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 137504 STE 20 SA · submitted 3 April 2018 · Closed · from registration SM26508 (Empire Communities Ltd.)
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 SM26508: 333 King Street West application for 49 storey mixed use high rise residential building (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 137504 STE 20 SA at 327 King St W: Third submission for Site Plan Control application for a new 49-storey mixed-use building with ground floor commercial and 327 dwelling units. See also associated Zoning Amendment application (file no. 10 182677 STE 20 OZ). The project includes heritage retention of the facdes of the designated bui… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 333 King Street West application for 49 storey mixed use high rise residential building
Matched fields
- address
- 333 KING ST W
- application_address
- 333 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 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.