Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 13 108799 NNY 08 SA

1911 Finch Ave W

Ward 7 · Anthony PerruzzaDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 21 January 2013; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1911 Finch Ave W
Ward: Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
Submitted: 21 January 2013
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: 1,950 m² gross floor area
Related file: 13 108813 NNY 08 OZ

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

Renovation of an existing shopping centre and a building addition into southwest section of existing parking lot to permit a new supermarket , resulting in an overall increase in gross floor area of 1,950 m2. See associated Zoning By-law Amendment Application 13 108813 NNY 08 OZ.

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.

Hullmark Asset Management
SM36924 · 28 August 2025 · “1911 Finch Avenue West”
Hullmark Asset Management
SM36925 · 28 August 2025 · “1911 Finch Avenue West”
Southdown Builders
SM33353 · 13 June 2022 · “1911 Finch Avenue West.”
Brad-Jay Investments Ltd.
SM29860 · 1 April 2020 · “1911 Finch Avenue West”
Southdown Builders
SM27894 · 20 March 2019 · “1911 Finch Avenue West.”

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 7

5 lobbied · 28 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 7: 5 lobbied and 28 matched unlobbied applications in 5 matched strata
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	28	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.