Address · Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
5220 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Location
- 43.77109, -79.41394
- 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· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real Estate Services | City staff | 1 | 0 | 14 February 2012 |
| Ward 23 Willowdale | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 2 February 2017 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23993 | G Group 5220 Yonge Ltd. | 5220 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 2 February 2017 – 30 March 2018 | 1 |
| SM17371 | Centrust Development | 5220 Yonge Street | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 24 October 2011 – 30 September 2013 | 1 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
6- Submitted 25 February 2026Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 26 121487 NNY 18 OZUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 1 September 2023Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 23 196812 NNY 18 CDDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 30 March 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0184/23NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 August 2010Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 10 247876 NNY 23 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 September 2009Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 09 165755 NNY 23 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 15 April 2009Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 09 126061 NNY 23 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 6 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 121487 NNY 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 25 February 2026 | Under Review In progress |
| 23 196812 NNY 18 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 1 September 2023 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| A0184/23NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 30 March 2023 | Closed Approved |
| 10 247876 NNY 23 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 26 August 2010 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 165755 NNY 23 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 3 September 2009 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 09 126061 NNY 23 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 15 April 2009 | 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
5220 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
10 247876 NNY 23 SA · submitted 26 August 2010 · Closed · from registration SM12888 (Adam J. Brown Professional Corporation)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.70
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 SM12888: All necessary approvals for development of property at 5220 - 5254 Yonge Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 247876 NNY 23 SA at 5220 Yonge St: Site Plan Application for a mixed-use development consisting of a 14-storey hotel and 29-storey residential tower including a podium/base building with commercial uses. Seven Rental replacement units to be provided in the form of 'garden apartments'. Application has been circulated under the associ… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: All necessary approvals for development of property at 5220 - 5254 Yonge Street
Matched fields
- address
- 5220-5254 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 5220 YONGE ST
32 Churchill Ave · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
09 165755 NNY 23 OZ · submitted 3 September 2009 · Closed · from registration SM17371 (Centrust Development)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.72
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 SM17371: Centrium - 5220 Yonge Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 09 165755 NNY 23 OZ at 32 Churchill Ave: REVISED PROPOSAL MAY 23, 2017: 31-storey residential tower, including a 2-5 storey podium base building and a 10-storey commercial/office building. The towers wil have a total of 308 residential units of which seven will be relocated rental units previously existing. ORIGINAL WORK DESCRIPTION:Offic… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Centrium - 5220 Yonge Street
Matched fields
- address
- 5220 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 5220B 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.
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.
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 18
1 lobbied · 5 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 | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 5 | 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 18
9 lobbied · 202 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 | 9 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 202 | 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 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.