Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise
111 Bond St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Location
- 43.65710, -79.37835
- 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· 3 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 17 September 2015 |
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 2 March 2016 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 14 August 2015 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22065 | Ryerson Univeristy | 111 Bond Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 21 July 2015 – 31 December 2023 | 3 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 23 December 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 242103 STE 13 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 May 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0424/20TEYClosed · Withdrawn
- Submitted 13 November 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 251448 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 15 May 2014Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 14 157484 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 242103 STE 13 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 23 December 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0424/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 22 May 2020 | Closed Withdrawn |
| 14 251448 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 13 November 2014 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 157484 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 15 May 2014 | 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
272 Church St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
14 251448 STE 27 SA · submitted 13 November 2014 · Closed · from registration SM22196 (St. George's Greek Orthodox Church)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.95
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 SM22196: Discussions with City Councillors regarding concerns with respect to adjacent development application at 270-288 Church Street, Toronto. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 251448 STE 27 SA at 272 Church St: Site Plan application by Ryerson University to permit a 27-storey building (plus a two storey mechanical penthouse) with a height of 104.8 metres . The building will contain 15,052 square metres of academic, administration and retail space in the base building and an additional 10,675 square metres… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Discussions with City Councillors regarding concerns with respect to adjacent development application at 270-288 Church Street, Toronto.
Matched fields
- address
- 270-288 CHURCH ST
- application_address
- 270 CHURCH ST
288 Church St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
14 157484 STE 27 OZ · submitted 15 May 2014 · Closed · from registration SM22196 (St. George's Greek Orthodox Church)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.95
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 SM22196: Discussions with City Councillors regarding concerns with respect to adjacent development application at 270-288 Church Street, Toronto. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 157484 STE 27 OZ at 288 Church St: Rezoning and site plan application by Ryerson University to permit a 27-storey building with a height of 93.8 metres. The building will contain 15,490 square metres of academic, administration and retail space in the base building and an additional 10,796 square metres of space in the tower for 100… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Discussions with City Councillors regarding concerns with respect to adjacent development application at 270-288 Church Street, Toronto.
Matched fields
- address
- 270-288 CHURCH ST
- application_address
- 270 CHURCH 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 13
82 lobbied · 96 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 | 82 | — | 100% (n=13) | 0% | 11% | 0.15 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 96 | — | 90% (n=14) | 10% | 16% | 0.08 |
| 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.
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 13
5 lobbied · 76 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 76 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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 13
56 lobbied · 128 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 | 56 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 7% | 0.16 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 128 | — | 100% (n=8) | 0% | 2% | 0.01 |
| 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.