lobbyTO

Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise

591 Dundas St E

Registrations naming this address
0
Communications on those registrations
0
Applications at this address
33
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Location
43.66050, -79.36051
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

Registrations that mention this address

0

These 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.

None.

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

No communications recorded.

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

33
Data table· 33 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
24 189806 STE 13 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)29 July 2024Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
22 136063 STE 13 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)20 April 2022OMB Appeal
In progress
20 208683 STE 13 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)20 October 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0814/20TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)22 September 2020Closed
Approved
19 224631 STE 13 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)20 September 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 155939 STE 13 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)17 May 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
18 178689 STE 28 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)15 June 2018Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0852/17TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)3 August 2017Closed
Approved
A0851/17TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)2 August 2017Closed
Approved
A1276/16TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)22 December 2016Closed
Approved
B0092/16TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Consent (severance) (CO)22 December 2016Closed
Approved
16 268551 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)19 December 2016Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
16 261959 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)8 December 2016Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A1057/16TEY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)31 October 2016Closed
Approved
16 171080 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)9 June 2016Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
16 104808 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)15 January 2016Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 264787 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)14 December 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 215421 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)31 August 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
15 193672 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)20 July 2015Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 234916 STE 13 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)8 October 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 234229 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)7 October 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 154115 STE 28 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)9 May 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
14 133926 STE 13 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)26 March 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 159322 STE 28 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)30 April 2013Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
13 127808 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)4 March 2013Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
12 188343 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)7 June 2012Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 323666 STE 28 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)9 December 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 218221 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)14 June 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 156894 STE 13 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)29 March 2011Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
10 225905 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)21 July 2010Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
10 150897 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)13 April 2010Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
09 163507 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)28 August 2009Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
09 117788 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)17 March 2009Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)

Linked lobbying registrations

No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.

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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=13
  • Matched, unlobbied90% n=14

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied10%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied11%
  • Matched, unlobbied16%

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

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 13: 82 lobbied and 96 matched unlobbied applications in 34 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied82—100% (n=13)0%11%0.15
Matched, unlobbied96—90% (n=14)10%16%0.08
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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.

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 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 13: 4 lobbied and 23 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied23Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—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 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied126
  • Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

  • Lobbied75% n=154
  • Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied43%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%
Data table· 4 rows
Minor variance (MV), Ward 13: 5 lobbied and 76 matched unlobbied applications in 2 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied76Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.

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 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied184
  • Matched, unlobbied115

Approval rate

  • Lobbied79% n=24
  • Matched, unlobbied88% n=133

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied21%
  • Matched, unlobbied12%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied15%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied25%
Data table· 2 rows
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide: 26 lobbied and 179 matched unlobbied applications in 21 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied2618479% (n=24)21%15%25%
Matched, unlobbied17911588% (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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=8

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied7%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied56—100% (n=5)0%7%0.16
Matched, unlobbied128—100% (n=8)0%2%0.01
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.