Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Development application 25 239584 STE 12 CD
129 Vaughan Rd; 133 Vaughan Rd; 135 Vaughan Rd; 137 Vaughan Rd; 139 Vaughan Rd; 141 Vaughan Rd
- Status
- Draft Plan Approved
- Approved
- Submitted
- 14 October 2025
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
- Addresses
- 129 Vaughan Rd; 133 Vaughan Rd; 135 Vaughan Rd; 137 Vaughan Rd; 139 Vaughan Rd; 141 Vaughan Rd
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Submitted
- 14 October 2025
- Status
- Draft Plan Approved
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 153 units
- Related file
- 19 243559 STE 12 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Draft Plan of Condominium for 153 dwelling units.
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
Block (Vaughan Road) Developments Limited · registration SM36090
127-141 Vaughan Road
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM36090: 127-141 Vaughan Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 25 239584 STE 12 CD at 129 Vaughan Rd: Draft Plan of Condominium for 153 dwelling units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 127-141 Vaughan Road
Matched fields
- address
- 127-141 VAUGHAN RD
- application_address
- 141 VAUGHAN RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 4 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Matlow | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 19 November 2024 |
| Josh Matlow | Member of council | 1 | 0 | 5 November 2024 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
None.
Comparison with similar 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), Ward 12
5 lobbied · 11 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 11 | 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 | 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.