Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
10 Brentcliffe Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.71225, -79.35914
- 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
1These 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· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 26 Don Valley West | Member of council | 4 | 4 | 24 August 2017 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM23726 | Rockport Homes Limited | 10 Brentcliffe Rd | Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law | 17 November 2016 – 31 December 2026 | 4 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 12 May 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 157934 NNY 15 OZOMB Appeal · In progress
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 157934 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 12 May 2025 | OMB Appeal In progress |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
- 105-109 Vanderhoof Avenue and 10 Brentcliffe Road - Official Plan Amendment Application - Appeal Report2026.PH29.6 · 14 April 2026
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.
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
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 | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 15% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 36 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 30% | 0.01 |
| 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.