Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
90 Harbour Street
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.64185, -79.37891
- How this address was located
- Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 88 HARBOUR ST (2 civic numbers away).
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
3These 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 8 | 6 | 2 October 2012 |
| Ward 2 Etobicoke North | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 12 December 2011 |
| Mayor | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 12 December 2011 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM17274 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 90 Harbour Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 5 October 2011 – 20 February 2018 | 4 |
| SM15507 | Menkes | 90 Harbour Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 6 December 2010 – 5 February 2015 | 7 |
| SM11679 | Torgan Group | 90 Harbour Street | Planning and Development, policies, heritage, zoning regulations | 6 May 2008 – 22 December 2009 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 16 September 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 224007 STE 28 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 30 August 2016Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 16 215422 STE 28 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 23 March 2012Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 12 142177 STE 28 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 October 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 295626 STE 28 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 June 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 220406 STE 28 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 224007 STE 28 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 16 September 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 215422 STE 28 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 30 August 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 142177 STE 28 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 March 2012 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 295626 STE 28 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 October 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 220406 STE 28 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 16 June 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
90 Harbour St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 295626 STE 28 OZ · submitted 19 October 2011 · Closed · from registration SM15507 (Menkes)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM15507: 90 Harbour Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 295626 STE 28 OZ at 90 Harbour St: PROPERTY KNOWN AS BOTH 90 Harbour and 1 York St. Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for new mixed use development - proposing 3 buildings (1 office tower and 2 residential buildings). Office tower 40 stories (158 metres). Two residential buildings 223 and 233 metres including mechanic… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 90 Harbour Street
Matched fields
- address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
- application_address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
90 Harbour St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 295626 STE 28 OZ · submitted 19 October 2011 · Closed · from registration SM17274 (Menkes Developments Ltd)
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 SM17274: 90 Harbour Street, Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 295626 STE 28 OZ at 90 Harbour St: PROPERTY KNOWN AS BOTH 90 Harbour and 1 York St. Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for new mixed use development - proposing 3 buildings (1 office tower and 2 residential buildings). Office tower 40 stories (158 metres). Two residential buildings 223 and 233 metres including mechanic… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 90 Harbour Street, Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
- application_address
- 90 HARBOUR ST
85 Harbour St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
11 220406 STE 28 SA · submitted 16 June 2011 · Closed · from registration SM16388 (Oxford Properties Group)
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 SM16388: 85 Harbour Street office development and pedestrian bridge for PATH Connection from 40 Bay Street (Air Canada Centre) to 85 Harbour Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 220406 STE 28 SA at 85 Harbour St: Site Plan Approval for elevated PATH pedestrian bridge to connect the second floor of Waterpark Place Phase III at 10-20 Bay Street and 85 Harbour Street over the Harbour Street road allowance, across the west side of 90 Harbour Street site, over Lake Shore Boulevard West/under the Gardiner Express… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 85 Harbour Street office development and pedestrian bridge for PATH Connection from 40 Bay Street (Air Canada Centre) to 85 Harbour Stree…
Matched fields
- address
- 85 HARBOUR ST
- application_address
- 85 HARBOUR 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.