Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
2781 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.71864, -79.40064
- 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transportation Services | City staff | 2 | 0 | 18 December 2023 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM34751 | Devron (YS) Ltd. | 2781 Yonge St. | Planning and Development; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Develop… | 25 August 2023 – 25 August 2025 | 2 |
| SM24937 | Devron (YS) Ltd. | 2781 Yonge Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan | 10 August 2017 – 30 June 2018 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
7- Submitted 12 March 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0137/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 12 March 2024Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0009/24NYApproved with Conditions · Approved
- Submitted 31 January 2024Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0003/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 3 March 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 119760 NNY 15 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 17 December 2021Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 21 249581 NNY 15 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 2 March 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 123995 NNY 25 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 21 February 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 123068 NNY 25 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 7 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0137/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 12 March 2024 | Closed Approved |
| B0009/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 12 March 2024 | Approved with Conditions Approved |
| B0003/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 31 January 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 23 119760 NNY 15 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 March 2023 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 249581 NNY 15 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 17 December 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 123995 NNY 25 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 2 March 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 123068 NNY 25 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 21 February 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
2781 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
23 119760 NNY 15 SA · submitted 3 March 2023 · Closed · from registration SM34751 (Devron (YS) Ltd.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM34751: 2781 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M4N 2H8 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 23 119760 NNY 15 SA at 2781 Yonge St: Proposal for a site plan amendment to reflect changes to streetscape, landscaping, civil plans and change to number of units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2781 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M4N 2H8
Matched fields
- address
- 2781 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2781 YONGE ST
2779 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 123995 NNY 25 SA · submitted 2 March 2018 · Closed · from registration SM24937 (Devron (YS) Ltd.)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM24937: Development of 2779, 2781 Yonge Street, and 15-17 & 19-21 Strathgowan Avenue, Toronto, ON (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 123995 NNY 25 SA at 2779 Yonge St: Construct a mixed use building 9 storey's with 90 dwelling units including 28 rental replacement units and 804 square metres of at grade retail. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development of 2779, 2781 Yonge Street, and 15-17 & 19-21 Strathgowan Avenue, Toronto, ON
Matched fields
- address
- 2781 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2781 YONGE ST
2779 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
18 123995 NNY 25 SA · submitted 2 March 2018 · Closed · from registration SM30563 (Devron (YS) Ltd.)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.94
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM30563: Secure outstanding sign-offs from ECS, Toronto Water, and City Legal to secure final Site Plan Approval at 2779 Yonge Street, Toronto ON M4N 2H8 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 123995 NNY 25 SA at 2779 Yonge St: Construct a mixed use building 9 storey's with 90 dwelling units including 28 rental replacement units and 804 square metres of at grade retail. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Secure outstanding sign-offs from ECS, Toronto Water, and City Legal to secure final Site Plan Approval at 2779 Yonge Street, Toronto ON M4N 2H8
Matched fields
- address
- 2779 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2779 YONGE ST
2779 Yonge St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 123068 NNY 25 OZ · submitted 21 February 2013 · Closed · from registration SM18645 (Pollak Design)
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 SM18645: ZBA application re proposed redevelopment of: 2779 & 2781 Yonge St and 15-17 & 19-21 Strathgowan Ave (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 123068 NNY 25 OZ at 2779 Yonge St: Revised rezoning application to redevelop the lands with a new mixed use building10 storeys 31.75 m145 residential units of which 28 are rental replacement unitsretail at grade164 parking spaces in 3 levels of underground parking (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: ZBA application re proposed redevelopment of: 2779 & 2781 Yonge St and 15-17 & 19-21 Strathgowan Ave
Matched fields
- address
- 2779&2781 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2779 YONGE ST
2779 Yonge St · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 123068 NNY 25 OZ · submitted 21 February 2013 · Closed · from registration SM19771 (Bianca Pollak)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.74
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 SM19771: 2779 Yonge St (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 123068 NNY 25 OZ at 2779 Yonge St: Revised rezoning application to redevelop the lands with a new mixed use building10 storeys 31.75 m145 residential units of which 28 are rental replacement unitsretail at grade164 parking spaces in 3 levels of underground parking (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 2779 Yonge St
Matched fields
- address
- 2779 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 2779 YONGE 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.
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.
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), Ward 15
2 lobbied · 26 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 26 | 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 | 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.
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.
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), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
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.