Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
299 Roehampton Ave
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.70953, -79.38975
- 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
6These 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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 6 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM37469 | K&G Apartment Holdings Inc. | 299 Roehampton Avenue | Affordable Housing; Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and… | 2 March 2026 – 31 December 2026 | 0 |
| SM36547 | K&G Apartment Holdings Inc. | 299 Roehampton Avenue | Planning and Development, Rental Housing Demolition or Conversion; Planning and Development Applica… | 15 April 2025 – 31 December 2025 | 0 |
| SM16534 | K&G Apartment Holdings Inc. | 299 Roehampton Avenue | Planning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-la… | 3 June 2011 – 30 December 2011 | 0 |
| SM11158 | K&G Apartment Holdings Inc. | 299 Roehampton Avenue | Planning Applications: Official Plan,zoning by-law, site plan,rental housing demolition | 21 February 2008 – 13 January 2010 | 0 |
| SM11169 | K&G Apartment Holdings Inc. | 299 Roehampton Avenue | Planning Application: Official Plan, Zoning by-law | 21 February 2008 – 14 September 2011 | 0 |
| SM10827 | K&G Apartment Holdings Inc. | 299 Roehampton Ave. | subject matter no. 1: planning application - zoning, by laws | 13 February 2008 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 3 July 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 187440 NNY 15 OZAppeal Received · In progress
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 187440 NNY 15 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 3 July 2025 | Appeal Received 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.
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.