Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 16 133600 WET 02 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 30 March 2016
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 50 Humberwood Boulevard.
- Ward
- Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
- Submitted
- 30 March 2016
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 138 units
- Related file
- 15 192495 WET 02 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
To permit the redevelopment of the lands at 50 Humberwood Boulevard (abutting the Humber River valleylands) with a ten block townhouse development and a new public road (connecting to Humberwood Boulevard and Rexdale Boulevard). The revised proposal would contain a total of 126 residential units comprised of 36 freehold street townhouses and 90 back-to-back units (with at-grade parking garages). The previous proposal included a total of 138 units and a one level underground parking garage. It should be noted that only the 90 back-to-back units were subject to this Site Plan Control Approval process. See Folder 192495 WET 02 OZ and 133595 WET 02 SB for related rezoning and subdivision applications. See Folder A0218/19EYK for related minor variance application.
Linked lobbying registrations
No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Tribute CommunitiesSM26233 · 17 May 2018 · “50 Humberwood Boulevard.”
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.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 1
4 lobbied · 12 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 12 | 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=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 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.