Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
740 York Mills Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.75356, -79.36205
- 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
0These 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.
None.
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
No communications recorded.
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
3- Submitted 6 December 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0601/24NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 269750 NNY 25 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 4 July 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 198702 NNY 25 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 3 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0601/24NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 6 December 2024 | Closed Approved |
| 16 269750 NNY 25 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 198702 NNY 25 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 4 July 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
740 York Mills Rd · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 269750 NNY 25 SA · submitted 21 December 2016 · Closed · from registration SM17745 (MintoUrban Communities Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.87
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 SM17745: 740-750 York Mills Road and 17 Farmstead Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 269750 NNY 25 SA at 740 York Mills Rd: To permit the addition of 192 new apartment units in a stacked townhouse form that are 3 and 4 storeys in height within 7 building blocks. The proposed new gross floor area for the site would be 19568 m2. The three existing 18 storey rental apartment buildings with 409 rental units would be maintai… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 740-750 York Mills Road and 17 Farmstead Road
Matched fields
- address
- 740-750 YORK MILLS RD
- application_address
- 740 YORK MILLS RD
750 York Mills Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 198702 NNY 25 OZ · submitted 4 July 2013 · Closed · from registration SM17745 (MintoUrban Communities Inc.)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
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 SM17745: 740-750 York Mills Road and 17 Farmstead Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 198702 NNY 25 OZ at 750 York Mills Rd: To permit the addition of 192 new apartment units in a stacked townhouse form that are 3 and 4 storeys in height within 7 building blocks. The proposed new gross floor area for the site would be 19568 m2. The three existing 18 storey rental apartment buildings with 409 rental units would be maintai… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 740-750 York Mills Road and 17 Farmstead Road
Matched fields
- address
- 740-750 YORK MILLS RD
- application_address
- 740 YORK MILLS RD
750 York Mills Rd · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
13 198702 NNY 25 OZ · submitted 4 July 2013 · Closed · from registration SM22931 (LYM Developments LP)
Evidence High confidence · score 0.93
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 SM22931: Assist in seeking committee and council approval for new town homes at 740 and 750 York Mills Road and 17 Farmstead Road as part of a zoning by-law amendment (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 13 198702 NNY 25 OZ at 750 York Mills Rd: To permit the addition of 192 new apartment units in a stacked townhouse form that are 3 and 4 storeys in height within 7 building blocks. The proposed new gross floor area for the site would be 19568 m2. The three existing 18 storey rental apartment buildings with 409 rental units would be maintai… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Assist in seeking committee and council approval for new town homes at 740 and 750 York Mills Road and 17 Farmstead Road as part of a zoning by-law amendment
Matched fields
- address
- 750 YORK MILLS RD
- application_address
- 750 YORK MILLS RD
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 15
5 lobbied · 419 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 | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 419 | 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 15
12 lobbied · 41 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 12 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 41 | 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=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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 15
20 lobbied · 36 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 10% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 36 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 25% | 0.01 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 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.