Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
60 Atlantic Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Location
- 43.63843, -79.42086
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Gord Perks, Ward 14 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 2 June 2016 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22659 | Hullmark Developments Limited | 60 Atlantic Avenue | Building Permits; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Applica… | 13 January 2016 – 31 March 2021 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 23 December 2015Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1293/15TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 19 August 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 209692 STE 14 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1293/15TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 23 December 2015 | Closed Approved |
| 15 209692 STE 14 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 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
60 Atlantic Ave · Minor variance (MV)
A1293/15TEY · submitted 23 December 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22659 (Hullmark Developments Limited)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.90
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 SM22659: 60 Atlantic Avenue - We have applied for Site Plan approval for this property to building a new 5 storey office building. A Minor Variance application is required to allow the development. Permit applications will be applied for in April 2016 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A1293/15TEY at 60 Atlantic Ave: To construct a new five-storey commercial building with two levels of below-grade parking on the lot adjacent to the existing two-storey commercial building on the lot. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 60 Atlantic Avenue - We have applied for Site Plan approval for this property to building a new 5 storey office building. A Minor Variance…
Matched fields
- address
- 60 ATLANTIC AVE
- application_address
- 60 ATLANTIC AVE
60 Atlantic Ave · Site Plan Approval (SA)
15 209692 STE 14 SA · submitted 19 August 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22659 (Hullmark Developments Limited)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
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 SM22659: 60 Atlantic Avenue - We have applied for Site Plan approval for this property to building a new 5 storey office building. A Minor Variance application is required to allow the development. Permit applications will be applied for in April 2016 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 209692 STE 14 SA at 60 Atlantic Ave: Site Plan approval to construct a new 5 storey heavy timber office/retail building of approximately 7906m2 of Gross Floor Area. The building will contain 78 parking stalls in 2 levels of underground parking. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 60 Atlantic Avenue - We have applied for Site Plan approval for this property to building a new 5 storey office building. A Minor Variance…
Matched fields
- address
- 60 ATLANTIC AVE
- application_address
- 60 ATLANTIC AVE
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
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.
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.