Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
1 Tudor Gt
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.74323, -79.38283
- 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
1These 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 6 York Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 21 May 2021 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM31727 | Mr. Jigui Zhang | 1 Tudor Gate | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 21 May 2021 – 6 July 2026 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 5 November 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 249512 NNY 15 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 March 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0144/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 25 March 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 130425 NNY 15 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 25 March 2019Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 19 130429 NNY 15 SAUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 249512 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 5 November 2025 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0144/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 8 March 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 19 130425 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 25 March 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 19 130429 NNY 15 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 25 March 2019 | Under Review In progress |
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
1 Tudor Gt · Site Plan Approval (SA)
19 130429 NNY 15 SA · submitted 25 March 2019 · Under Review · from registration SM31727 (Mr. Jigui Zhang)
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 SM31727: 1 Tudor Gate, North York (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 19 130429 NNY 15 SA at 1 Tudor Gt: INACTIVE The development of 7 - three storey townhouses with an FSI of 1.43. The townhouses will front onto Bayview Avenue with the end-corner unit also having an entranceway fronting onto Tudor Gate. Parking is proposed at the rear of the townhouses in the form of a covered half-underground level … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 1 Tudor Gate, North York
Matched fields
- address
- 1 TUDOR GATE
- application_address
- 1 TUDOR GATE
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 15
20 lobbied · 36 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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 15% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 36 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 30% | 0.01 |
| 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.
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 15
5 lobbied · 419 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 | 419 | 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 15
12 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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 | 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.