Address · Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
5799 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Location
- 43.78530, -79.41629
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy, Planning, Finance and Administration | City staff | 2 | 0 | 6 August 2024 |
| development review | City staff | 1 | 0 | 18 February 2025 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM35137 | 5799 Yonge Street Limited Partnership | 5799 Yonge Street | Planning and Development; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 13 December 2023 – 1 December 2026 | 3 |
| SM15544 | Silvercore Properties Inc. | 5799 Yonge Street | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 9 December 2010 – 29 June 2017 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 6 May 2024Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 24 144846 NNY 18 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 26 March 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 132353 NNY 18 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 October 2020Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 20 209468 NNY 18 SAUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 144846 NNY 18 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 6 May 2024 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 21 132353 NNY 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 March 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 20 209468 NNY 18 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 October 2020 | 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
5799-5915 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
20 209468 NNY 18 SA · submitted 22 October 2020 · Under Review · from registration SM31332 (Aoyuan International)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM31332: Community engagement related matters for the Newtonbrook Community Centre, 5799-5915 Yonge Street, 45 & 53 Cummer Avenue and 46 & 47 Avrill Crescent. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 209468 NNY 18 SA at 5799-5915 Yonge St: Site Plan Application for the second phase of the Newtonbrook Plaza development. Block 2 proposes a total gross floor area of 66,838.9 square metres, consisting of 63,152.3 square metres of residential GFA and 3,628.0 square metres of commercial GFA. The proposed mixed use building would contain tw… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Community engagement related matters for the Newtonbrook Community Centre, 5799-5915 Yonge Street, 45 & 53 Cummer Avenue and 46 & 47 Avrill Crescent.
Matched fields
- address
- 5799-5915 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 5799-5915 YONGE ST
5799-5915 Yonge St · Site Plan Approval (SA)
20 209468 NNY 18 SA · submitted 22 October 2020 · Under Review · from registration SM31333 (Aoyuan International)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.81
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 SM31333: Community engagement related matters for the Newtonbrook Community Centre: 5799-5915 Yonge Street, 45 & 53 Cummer Ave, and 46 & 47 Avrill Crescent. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 20 209468 NNY 18 SA at 5799-5915 Yonge St: Site Plan Application for the second phase of the Newtonbrook Plaza development. Block 2 proposes a total gross floor area of 66,838.9 square metres, consisting of 63,152.3 square metres of residential GFA and 3,628.0 square metres of commercial GFA. The proposed mixed use building would contain tw… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Community engagement related matters for the Newtonbrook Community Centre: 5799-5915 Yonge Street, 45 & 53 Cummer Ave, and 46 & 47 Avrill Crescent.
Matched fields
- address
- 5799-5915 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 5799-5915 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.
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.
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.
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.