Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 14 108027 STE 14 OZ

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 22 January 2014; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses: 1100 King St W
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 22 January 2014
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 13 111005 STE 14 SA

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

Proposal to lift the hold on the easterly portion of the east lot know municipally as 1100 King Street West "Block G" including the future public road portion of these lands in order that they may be developed with a mixed use building commercial and residential uses as per zoning by-law amendment application 11-210449 STE 14 OZ.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

First Capital REIT
SM29707 · 4 February 2020 · “1100 King St. W”
First capital Realty
SM27571 · 5 February 2019 · “1100 King St. W”
King Liberty North Corporation
SM27109 · 30 November 2018 · “1100 King Street West”
King Liberty North Corporation
SM19634 · 4 September 2013 · “1100 King Street West”
Urbancorp
SM19119 · 21 March 2013 · “1100 King Street West”
URBANCORP DEVELOPMENTS INC
SM17356 · 20 October 2011 · “1100 KING ST WEST”
Kilmer Brownfield Management Limited
SM12642 · 8 January 2009 · “1100 King Street W”
Urbancorp
SM11342 · 7 March 2008 · “1100 King Street West.”

Comparison with similar 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 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=7
Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied11%
Matched, unlobbied5%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

573 lobbied · 763 matched

Median days

Lobbied1,925
Matched, unlobbied1,793

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=64
Matched, unlobbied98% n=70

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Appeal rate

Lobbied13%
Matched, unlobbied13%

Data table· 4 rows

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 10: 88 lobbied and 94 matched unlobbied applications in 38 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	88	—	100% (n=7)	0%	11%	0.03
Matched, unlobbied	94	—	100% (n=6)	0%	5%	0.01

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 573 lobbied and 763 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	573	1,925	100% (n=64)	0%	13%	0.08
Matched, unlobbied	763	1,793	98% (n=70)	2%	13%	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.