Address · Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
439 Vaughan Rd
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Location
- 43.68914, -79.43292
- 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
20- Submitted 12 May 2022Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0038/22TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1157/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1158/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1159/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1160/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1161/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1162/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1163/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A1164/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 26 November 2020Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0093/20TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0675/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0676/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0677/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0678/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0679/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0680/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0681/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0682/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0683/19TEYClosed · Approved
- Submitted 20 June 2019Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0056/19TEYConditional Consent · Approved
Data table· 20 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| B0038/22TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 12 May 2022 | Closed Approved |
| A1157/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A1158/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A1159/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A1160/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A1161/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A1162/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A1163/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A1164/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| B0093/20TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 26 November 2020 | Closed Approved |
| A0675/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0676/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0677/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0678/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0679/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0680/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0681/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0682/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| A0683/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 20 June 2019 | Closed Approved |
| B0056/19TEY Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 20 June 2019 | Conditional Consent Approved |
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
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), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| 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.
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 12
20 lobbied · 357 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
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 | 20 | 106 | 50% (n=12) | 50% | 35% | 86% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 357 | 145 | 90% (n=291) | 10% | 5% | 30% |
| 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.