Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise
599 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 13 · Chris Moise
- Location
- 43.66642, -79.38487
- 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
2These 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Wong-Tam | Councillor staff | 4 | 0 | 10 March 2016 |
| Ward 27 | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 30 March 2016 |
| Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 2 | 1 | 24 March 2016 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22918 | Cresford Developments Inc. | 599 Yonge Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 23 March 2016 – 1 March 2018 | 3 |
| SM22802 | Cresford Developments Inc. | 599 Yonge Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 16 February 2016 – 16 February 2017 | 5 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
5- Submitted 1 December 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 243738 STE 13 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 November 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1186/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 30 October 2018Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 18 250049 STE 27 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 6 November 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 248458 STE 27 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 24 August 2012Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 12 235622 STE 27 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 5 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 243738 STE 13 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 1 December 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A1186/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 November 2019 | Closed Approved |
| 18 250049 STE 27 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 30 October 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 248458 STE 27 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 6 November 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 12 235622 STE 27 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 24 August 2012 | 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
593 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
15 248458 STE 27 SA · submitted 6 November 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22802 (Cresford Developments Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
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 SM22802: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 248458 STE 27 SA at 593 Yonge St: A Site Plan Control application to develop a 44-storey building, containing 528 residential units and 3,242 square metres of retail/commercial space. Zoning By-law Amendment File No. 12 235622 STE 27 OZ. In April 2013, the owner filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (PL130332). Zoning By-l… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 599 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 599 YONGE ST
593 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
15 248458 STE 27 SA · submitted 6 November 2015 · Closed · from registration SM22918 (Cresford Developments Inc.)
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 SM22918: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 15 248458 STE 27 SA at 593 Yonge St: A Site Plan Control application to develop a 44-storey building, containing 528 residential units and 3,242 square metres of retail/commercial space. Zoning By-law Amendment File No. 12 235622 STE 27 OZ. In April 2013, the owner filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (PL130332). Zoning By-l… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 587 to 599 Yonge Street, 2 to 4 Dundonald Street, 7 to 9 Gloucester Street, City of Toronto
Matched fields
- address
- 599 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 599 YONGE ST
587 Yonge St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 235622 STE 27 OZ · submitted 24 August 2012 · Closed · from registration SM12396 (Diamondcorp)
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 SM12396: Processing of Development application for zoning by-law ammendment for 606-618 Yonge St., 5-9 St. Joseph Street, and 11-19, 25 St. Nicholas Street. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 235622 STE 27 OZ at 587 Yonge St: Proposal to construct a 49 sty condo with 514 residential units, commercial at grade, maintain portion of Heritage building, and below grade parking. Application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board as of April 5, 2013. RESUBMISSION - Proposal has been revised to a 44 storey tower at th… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Processing of Development application for zoning by-law ammendment for 606-618 Yonge St., 5-9 St. Joseph Street, and 11-19, 25 St. Nicholas Street.
Matched fields
- address
- 606-618 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 591 YONGE ST
587 Yonge St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
12 235622 STE 27 OZ · submitted 24 August 2012 · Closed · from registration SM20293 (Stancorp Properties Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.87
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 SM20293: Rezoning application for 587-599 Yonge Street, 2-4 Dundonald Street, 7-9 Gloucester Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 235622 STE 27 OZ at 587 Yonge St: Proposal to construct a 49 sty condo with 514 residential units, commercial at grade, maintain portion of Heritage building, and below grade parking. Application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board as of April 5, 2013. RESUBMISSION - Proposal has been revised to a 44 storey tower at th… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Rezoning application for 587-599 Yonge Street, 2-4 Dundonald Street, 7-9 Gloucester Street
Matched fields
- address
- 587-599 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 587 YONGE 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.
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.