Address · Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
5915 Yonge St
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Location
- 43.78675, -79.41689
- 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
4These 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· 25 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 24 Willowdale | Member of council | 32 | 22 | 19 September 2017 |
| Planning, Community Planning | City staff | 14 | 14 | 6 July 2015 |
| Planning, Urban Design | City staff | 14 | 14 | 26 June 2015 |
| Legal Services Division | City staff | 11 | 9 | 27 January 2016 |
| Councillor Shiner | Councillor staff | 10 | 6 | 8 May 2017 |
| Office of Councillor Shiner, Ward 24 | Councillor staff | 9 | 7 | 1 June 2017 |
| Community Planning (North York District, Central) | City staff | 8 | 6 | 9 July 2015 |
| Planning- Community Planning | City staff | 8 | 6 | 9 July 2015 |
| Councillor Shiner, Ward 24 | Councillor staff | 7 | 7 | 27 January 2016 |
| Legal Services | City staff | 5 | 5 | 27 January 2016 |
| Planning, North York District | City staff | 5 | 5 | 9 July 2015 |
| City Planning, Urban Design (North York District) | City staff | 4 | 4 | 26 June 2015 |
| Planning, Community Planning-Scarborough District | City staff | 4 | 4 | 6 July 2015 |
| Planning, Urban Design (North York District) | City staff | 4 | 4 | 26 June 2015 |
| Planning- Community Planning- Scarborough District | City staff | 4 | 4 | 6 July 2015 |
| Ward 23 Willowdale | Member of council | 4 | 2 | 9 July 2015 |
| Real Estate | City staff | 2 | 2 | 27 January 2016 |
| Office of Councillor Shiner | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 3 October 2017 |
| Affordable Housing Office | City staff | 1 | 1 | 3 July 2015 |
| City Legal Services | City staff | 1 | 1 | 9 July 2015 |
| Community Planning (North York District) | City staff | 1 | 1 | 9 July 2015 |
| Community Planning, North York | City staff | 1 | 1 | 9 July 2015 |
| Community Planning, North York District | City staff | 1 | 1 | 9 July 2015 |
| Office of Councillor Shiner. Ward 24 | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 31 March 2016 |
| Ward 38 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 7 July 2015 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM25049 | 2591260 Ontario Inc. | 5915 Yonge Street | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 15 September 2017 – 20 May 2020 | 2 |
| SM22017 | Cummer-Yonge Holdings Inc. | 5915 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 9 July 2015 – 9 December 2016 | 7 |
| SM21939 | Silvercore Inc. | 5915 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 8 June 2015 – 19 June 2018 | 54 |
| SM21647 | Silvercore Inc. | 5915 Yonge Street | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 10 April 2015 – 23 August 2018 | 91 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
2- Submitted 27 June 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 168546 NNY 18 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 27 June 2022Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 22 168547 NNY 18 OZUnder Review · In progress
Data table· 2 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 168546 NNY 18 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 June 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 22 168547 NNY 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 27 June 2022 | Under Review In progress |
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.
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.