lobbyTO

Address · Ward 13 · Chris Moise

60 Mill St

Registrations naming this address
9
4 client organisations
Communications on those registrations
48
16 offices contacted
Applications at this address
3
6 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Location
43.65108, -79.35954
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

9

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.

Registrations by communications

Top 8

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

  • Economic Development and Culture10
  • Economic Development & Culture4
  • Office of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam (Ward 13)4
  • Office of the Mayor4
  • Ward 13 Toronto Centre4
  • City Manager's Office3
  • Office of Councillor Cressy3
  • Office of Pam McConnell3
Data table· 16 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Economic Development and CultureCity staff10624 June 2020
Economic Development & CultureCity staff406 January 2020
Office of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam (Ward 13)Councillor staff4029 July 2020
Office of the MayorCouncillor staff405 August 2020
Ward 13 Toronto CentreMember of council429 July 2020
City Manager's OfficeCity staff3010 August 2020
Office of Councillor CressyCouncillor staff3019 December 2019
Office of Pam McConnellCouncillor staff3017 February 2017
Mayor John ToryCouncillor staff2019 October 2020
Office of Councillor Michael Thompson (Ward 21)Councillor staff206 August 2020
Office of Councillor Wong-TamCouncillor staff2019 December 2019
MayorMember of council209 July 2020
Ward 21 Scarborough CentreMember of council2019 October 2020
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff102 February 2016
Office of Councillor Pam McConnell, Ward 28Councillor staff1010 July 2016
Ward 10 Spadina-Fort YorkMember of council1019 December 2019
All registrations· 9 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM30378Gupta Group of Hotels60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application; Zoning By-law24 July 2020 – 23 July 20211
SM30374Gupta Group of Hotels60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application; Zoning By-law23 July 2020 – 23 June 20211
SM302931293446 Ontario Inc.60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development; Planning and Development, Heritage; Planning and Development Application,…9 July 2020 – 31 December 20256
SM30158Gupta Group of Hotels60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application; Zoning By-law3 June 2020 – 23 June 20216
SM30159Gupta Group of Hotels60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application; Zoning By-law3 June 2020 – 14 December 202010
SM29454Gupta Group of Hotels60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law19 December 2019 – 18 December 202017
SM28203Easton's Group60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…16 May 2019 – 12 August 20262
SM21303Cityscape Development Corporation60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…23 January 2015 – 22 August 20173
SM21308Cityscape Development Corporation60 Mill StreetPlanning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B…23 January 2015 – 21 December 20212

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

3
Data table· 3 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
20 105467 STE 13 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)16 January 2020Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 264586 STE 13 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)24 December 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
11 219591 STE 28 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)15 June 2011Closed
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

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.

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.

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.