Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
49-51 Camden Street
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64675, -79.39794
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 49 CAMDEN ST.
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
2These 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 3 May 2016 |
| Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 October 2015 |
| Ward 23 Willowdale | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 3 September 2015 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22919 | Zinc Developments | 49-51 Camden Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 29 March 2016 – 31 December 2016 | 1 |
| SM22197 | 51 Camden Street Holdings Ltd. | 49-51 Camden Street | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 3 September 2015 – 1 December 2020 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 2 June 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 166414 STE 20 SAOMB Appeal · In progress
- Submitted 19 August 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 209675 STE 20 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 166414 STE 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 2 June 2016 | OMB Appeal In progress |
| 15 209675 STE 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 August 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
51 Camden St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
15 209675 STE 20 OZ · submitted 19 August 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22197 (51 Camden Street Holdings Ltd.)
Evidence High confidence · score 1.00
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 SM22197: Application file no. 15 209675 STE 20 OZ-- 49-51 Camden Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 209675 STE 20 OZ at 51 Camden St: Redevelopment of a 620 square metre (0.15 acre) property located on the southeast corner of Camden Street and Brant Street, municipally known as 49 and 51 Camden Street (the subject site), for a 13-storey hotel with a partially integrated mechanical penthouse. The new Ace Hotel would consist of 130… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Application file no. 15 209675 STE 20 OZ-- 49-51 Camden Street
- particulars: Application file no. 15 209675 STE 20 OZ-- 49-51 Camden Street
Matched fields
- file_number
- 15 209675 STE 20 OZ
- address
- 49-51 CAMDEN ST
- application_address
- 49-51 CAMDEN ST
Notes
The registration names this application's file number.
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.
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.