Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 20 205173 WET 01 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 9 October 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 555 Rexdale Blvd
- Ward
- Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
- Submitted
- 9 October 2020
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 20 185079 WET 01 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Proposed development of the Woodbine GO Station, including station platforms and pedestrian bridges in the rail corridor, a station building, bus loop, passenger pick up and drop off area, public/commercial parking lots, bicycle parking and realigned private driveway.
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.
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM37837 · 18 August 2026 · “555 Rexdale Blvd”
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM37163 · 1 November 2025 · “555 Rexdale Boulevard”
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM34655 · 19 July 2023 · “555 Rexdale Boulevard”
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM18910 · 6 February 2013 · “555 Rexdale Blvd.”
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM18911 · 6 February 2013 · “555 Rexdale Blvd.”
- UNITE HERE Local 75SM13166 · 18 June 2009 · “555 Rexdale Boulevard”
- Woodbine Live!SM10610 · 12 February 2008 · “555 Rexdale Blvd.”
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM10792 · 1 January 2008 · “555 Rexdale Blvd.”
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM11449 · 1 January 2008 · “555 Rexdale Blvd.”
- Woodbine Entertainment GroupSM11450 · 1 January 2008 · “555 Rexdale Blvd.”
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.