Address · Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
939 Eglinton Ave E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 15 · Rachel Chernos Lin
- Location
- 43.71350, -79.36038
- 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
5These 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· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 26 Don Valley West | Member of council | 13 | 11 | 26 October 2017 |
| Councillor Jon Burnside | Councillor staff | 11 | 0 | 9 July 2018 |
| Ward 15 Don Valley West | Member of council | 3 | 0 | 22 February 2019 |
| Toronto Water | City staff | 1 | 0 | 17 April 2018 |
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 0 | 15 February 2019 |
All registrations· 5 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM27655 | Camrost-Felcorp | 939 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 15 February 2019 – 28 November 2020 | 4 |
| SM26550 | Upper Eastside Building Group Inc. | 939 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 24 July 2018 – 24 July 2020 | 0 |
| SM24267 | Diamondcorp | 939 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 26 March 2017 – 31 December 2026 | 13 |
| SM22499 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2 | 939 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 17 November 2015 – 7 May 2017 | 2 |
| SM18293 | Whitecastle New Urban Fund 2 | 939 Eglinton Avenue East | Planning and Development Application, Official Plan | 25 July 2012 – 27 March 2017 | 10 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
14- Submitted 20 November 2025Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 25 256303 NNY 15 CDDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 7 September 2023Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0476/23NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 25 November 2022Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0049/22NYApproved with Conditions · Approved
- Submitted 5 April 2022Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)Development application 22 130928 NNY 15 CDClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 28 March 2022Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0222/22NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 April 2021Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 21 139777 NNY 15 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 18 December 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0049/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 13 December 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4696062Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 4 March 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0007/19NYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 February 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application COA-4526617Cancelled · Withdrawn
- Submitted 21 December 2017Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 17 278161 NNY 26 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 20 December 2016Part Lot Control Exemption (PL)Development application 16 269178 NNY 26 PLClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 April 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 141830 NNY 26 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 16 January 2013Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 13 107003 NNY 26 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 14 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 256303 NNY 15 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 20 November 2025 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| A0476/23NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 7 September 2023 | Closed Approved |
| B0049/22NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 25 November 2022 | Approved with Conditions Approved |
| 22 130928 NNY 15 CD Development application | Draft Plan of Condominium (CD) | 5 April 2022 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0222/22NY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 28 March 2022 | Closed Approved |
| 21 139777 NNY 15 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 13 April 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| B0049/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 18 December 2019 | Closed Approved |
| COA-4696062 Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 13 December 2019 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| B0007/19NY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 4 March 2019 | Closed Approved |
| COA-4526617 Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 20 February 2019 | Cancelled Withdrawn |
| 17 278161 NNY 26 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 December 2017 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 269178 NNY 26 PL Development application | Part Lot Control Exemption (PL) | 20 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 141830 NNY 26 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 April 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 13 107003 NNY 26 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 16 January 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 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.
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.
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.
Consent (severance) (CO), Ward 15
2 lobbied · 26 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 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 | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 26 | 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 | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
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 · 1,236 matchedApproval 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=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.
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.
Part Lot Control Exemption (PL), City-wide
2 lobbied · 6 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 2 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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
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.