Address · Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
4800 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Location
- 43.76082, -79.41102
- 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
6These 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 18 Willowdale | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 6 March 2019 |
| Ward 23 Willowdale | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 14 May 2012 |
| John Fillion | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 14 May 2012 |
| Mayors Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 30 October 2017 |
| Lily Cheng | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 13 January 2023 |
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37229 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 4800 Yonge Street. | Building Permits; Planning and Development; Transportation | 10 December 2025 – 31 December 2026 | 0 |
| SM27800 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 4800 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 6 March 2019 – 4 April 2022 | 1 |
| SM25231 | Menkes Developments Ltd | 4800 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 30 October 2017 – 1 October 2026 | 3 |
| SM18105 | Oxford Properties Group | 4800 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 14 May 2012 – 14 May 2015 | 0 |
| SM18109 | Oxford Properties Group | 4800 Yonge St. | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 14 May 2012 – 14 May 2015 | 2 |
| SM18115 | Oxford Properties Group | 4800 Yonge St. | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 14 May 2012 – 2 June 2016 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 29 October 2021Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 21 232299 NNY 18 SBUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 21 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 269431 NNY 23 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 19 February 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 118542 NNY 23 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 12 November 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 250774 NNY 23 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 232299 NNY 18 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 29 October 2021 | Under Review In progress |
| 16 269431 NNY 23 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 December 2016 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 16 118542 NNY 23 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 19 February 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 250774 NNY 23 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 12 November 2015 | Closed 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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 18
18 lobbied · 125 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 | 18 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 125 | 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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 18
37 lobbied · 63 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 | 37 | — | 100% (n=8) | 0% | 24% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 63 | — | 64% (n=5) | 36% | 16% | 0.04 |
| 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.