lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 23 184424 WET 07 SA

1911 Finch Ave W

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
4 August 2023
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
0 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1911 Finch Ave W
Ward
Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
Submitted
4 August 2023
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
2,730 units; 5,668 m² gross floor area
Related file
23 184369 WET 07 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Control Application to facilitate Phase 1 of the proposed redevelopment of the Jane Finch Mall. Phase 1 incorporates the lands fronting on Finch Avenue West. Six new buildings are proposed, with tower heights ranging from from 50 to 27 storeys. In total, Phase 1 proposes to deliver 2,730 new residential units. A total of 5,667.6 square metres of non-residential gross floor area is proposed, including 4,703 square metres of retail, approximately 465 square metres of indoor community space, and a 500-square metre day care centre.During Phase 1, most of the Jane Finch Mall is proposed to be retained, with approximately 2,500 square metres proposed to be demolished.Application relates to Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application file number 23 184369 WET 07 OZ.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Development ReviewCity staff109 March 2026
Olivia ChowCouncillor staff109 December 2025

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

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 · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied5Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied28Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)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.