lobbyTO

Address · Ward 18 · Lily Cheng

6150 Yonge St

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page
Registrations naming this address
1
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
6
2 offices contacted
Applications at this address
5
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
Location
43.79218, -79.41896
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

Registrations that mention this address

1

These 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
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 18 WillowdaleMember of council3313 January 2020
Lily ChengMember of council3321 August 2026
All registrations· 1 row
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM27590Sorbara Group of Companies6150 Yonge StPlanning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law7 February 2019 – 31 December 20266

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

5
Data table· 5 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
A0364/23NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)10 July 2023Closed
Approved
A0231/23NY
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)30 March 2023Closed
Approved
21 231690 NNY 18 CD
Development application
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)28 October 2021Under Review
In progress
19 243755 NNY 18 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)31 October 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
19 243760 NNY 18 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)31 October 2019NOAC Issued
Approved

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

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 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied126
  • Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

  • Lobbied75% n=154
  • Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied43%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%
Data table· 4 rows
Minor variance (MV), Ward 18: 9 lobbied and 202 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied9Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied202Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (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.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 18

1 lobbied · 5 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide

28 lobbied · 95 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=6

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%
Data table· 4 rows
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 18: 1 lobbied and 5 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied1Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide: 28 lobbied and 95 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied28—100% (n=3)0%0%0.04
Matched, unlobbied95—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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=8
  • Matched, unlobbied64% n=5

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied36%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied24%
  • Matched, unlobbied16%

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 18: 37 lobbied and 63 matched unlobbied applications in 23 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied37—100% (n=8)0%24%0.00
Matched, unlobbied63—64% (n=5)36%16%0.04
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—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 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 18: 18 lobbied and 125 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied18Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied125Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.