Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise
159 Wellesley St E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Location
- 43.66668, -79.37489
- 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
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 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 5 | 3 | 11 August 2015 |
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 3 November 2014 |
| mayor's office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 8 May 2013 |
All registrations· 3 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM21011 | The Alterra Group of Companies | 159 Wellesley St. E. | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian… | 3 November 2014 – 30 April 2022 | 1 |
| SM21021 | The Alterra Group of Companies | 159 Wellesley Street East | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian… | 3 November 2014 – 8 June 2015 | 2 |
| SM17462 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund | 159 Wellesley Street East. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 16 November 2011 – 13 November 2015 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 7 December 2020Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0087/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 15 August 2019Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 19 206541 STE 13 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 February 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0184/17TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 14 September 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 222882 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 April 2011Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 11 184584 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0087/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 7 December 2020 | Closed Approved |
| 19 206541 STE 13 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 15 August 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0184/17TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 16 February 2017 | Closed Approved |
| 16 222882 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 14 September 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 11 184584 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 29 April 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
159 Wellesley St E · Minor variance (MV)
A0184/17TEY · submitted 16 February 2017 · Closed · from registration SM21011 (The Alterra Group of Companies)
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 SM21011: Potential variance to approved GFA of proposed building. Municipal Address: 159 Wellesley St. E. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0184/17TEY at 159 Wellesley St E: To alter the redevelopment plan for a 36-storey mixed-used building, approved under Site-Specific By-law 826-2013 with respect to development standards associated with: gross floor area, building height, dwelling unit breakdown, rate of indoor amenity space, off-site parking, bicycle parking spaces… (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Potential variance to approved GFA of proposed building. Municipal Address: 159 Wellesley St. E.
Matched fields
- address
- 159 WELLESLEY ST E
- application_address
- 159 WELLESLEY ST E
159 Wellesley St E · Minor variance (MV)
A0184/17TEY · submitted 16 February 2017 · Closed · from registration SM21021 (The Alterra Group of Companies)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
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 SM21021: Redevelopment of 159 Wellesley Street East (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0184/17TEY at 159 Wellesley St E: To alter the redevelopment plan for a 36-storey mixed-used building, approved under Site-Specific By-law 826-2013 with respect to development standards associated with: gross floor area, building height, dwelling unit breakdown, rate of indoor amenity space, off-site parking, bicycle parking spaces… (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Redevelopment of 159 Wellesley Street East
Matched fields
- address
- 159 WELLESLEY ST E
- application_address
- 159 WELLESLEY ST E
159 Wellesley St E · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
11 184584 STE 27 OZ · submitted 29 April 2011 · Closed · from registration SM17462 (Whitecastle New Urban Fund)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM17462: Proposed mixed use redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 159 Wellesley Street East. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 184584 STE 27 OZ at 159 Wellesley St E: Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the lands for the purposes of a new 35 storey mixed use building complete with retail at grade and 361 residential units above. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Proposed mixed use redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 159 Wellesley Street East.
Matched fields
- address
- 159 WELLESLEY ST E
- application_address
- 159 WELLESLEY ST E
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 13
4 lobbied · 23 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 | 23 | 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.
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.
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.