Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise
48 Power St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Location
- 43.65450, -79.36310
- 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
4These 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 10 | 10 | 10 November 2016 |
| Office of Councillor Pam McConnell, Ward 28 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 1 February 2013 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23378 | Great Gulf Group of Companies | 48 Power Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 21 July 2016 – 21 July 2018 | 1 |
| SM18904 | Great Gulf Group of Companies | 48 Power Street | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and Development Applica… | 1 February 2013 – 16 December 2022 | 9 |
| SM18576 | Great Gulf Homes | 48 Power Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 19 October 2012 – 11 October 2013 | 0 |
| SM18552 | Great Gulf Ltd. | 48 Power Street | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 17 October 2012 – 17 October 2013 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 27 February 2023Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0018/23TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 25 September 2020Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 20 198767 STE 13 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 February 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 118464 STE 28 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 5 June 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 181685 STE 28 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0018/23TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 27 February 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 20 198767 STE 13 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 25 September 2020 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 17 118464 STE 28 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 17 February 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 181685 STE 28 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 June 2013 | 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
48 Power St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 181685 STE 28 OZ · submitted 5 June 2013 · Closed · from registration SM18576 (Great Gulf Homes)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.70
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 SM18576: 48 Power Street rezoning application Meeting with Councillor to provide overview of project October 17 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 181685 STE 28 OZ at 48 Power St: Revised application for a 22-storey mixed use building containing retail and residential uses. The building will contain a total of 532 residentil units, 499 parking spaces and 606 bicycle parking spaces. The existing buildings at 125 Parliament Street and 50 Power Street currently contains more th… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 48 Power Street rezoning application Meeting with Councillor to provide overview of project October 17
Matched fields
- address
- 48 POWER ST
- application_address
- 48 POWER ST
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.
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.