Address · Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
72 Church Ave
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Location
- 43.77479, -79.41032
- 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· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lily Cheng | Member of council | 5 | 2 | 21 August 2025 |
| Lily Cheng | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 29 January 2024 |
| Mike Colle | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 23 January 2024 |
| Shelley Carroll | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 1 February 2024 |
All registrations· 4 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM36840 | YOU GAN WEI and XIAO JING WANG | 72 Church Avenue | Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Minor Variance | 5 August 2025 – 30 November 2025 | 2 |
| SM35256 | Jean Wang | 72 Church Avenue | Planning and Development Application; Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning… | 23 January 2024 – 30 April 2024 | 3 |
| SM34801 | Yougan Wei | 72 Church Ave | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 1 September 2023 – 31 December 2023 | 0 |
| SM34778 | Yougan Wei & Jean Wang | 72 Church Ave. | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning B… | 24 August 2023 – 1 August 2024 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 25 June 2025Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0290/25NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 16 September 2019Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 19 221984 NNY 18 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 3 December 2014Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 14 259884 NNY 23 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 26 June 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 195001 NNY 23 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0290/25NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 25 June 2025 | Closed Approved |
| 19 221984 NNY 18 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 September 2019 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 14 259884 NNY 23 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 3 December 2014 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 13 195001 NNY 23 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 26 June 2013 | 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
72 Church Ave · Minor variance (MV)
A0290/25NY · submitted 25 June 2025 · Closed · from registration SM36840 (YOU GAN WEI and XIAO JING WANG)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.91
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM36840: Introduction of Minor Variance application for 72 Church Avenue, North York (Lobbyist Registry)
- Committee of Adjustment application A0290/25NY at 72 Church Ave: To construct a four-storey apartment building with 14 residential units. This application was previously deferred at the Committee of Adjustment hearing on August 28, 2025. (Committee of Adjustment Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Introduction of Minor Variance application for 72 Church Avenue, North York
Matched fields
- address
- 72 CHURCH AVE
- application_address
- 72 CHURCH AVE
Council and committee items naming this address
- 72 Church Avenue - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Decision Report - Approval2024.NY11.2 · 21 March 2024
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 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.
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.