Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 25 202228 NNY 17 SA
123 Parkway Forest Dr; 123A Parkway Forest Dr
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 29 July 2025
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 123 Parkway Forest Dr; 123A Parkway Forest Dr
- Ward
- Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
- Submitted
- 29 July 2025
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 384 units
- Related file
- 21 195222 NNY 17 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan application for the redevelopment of the lands with a 33-storey residential apartment building with 384 rental units, including six (6) affordable rental housing units. The existing 19-storey residential apartment building with 188 rental units will be retained. Five (5) of the ten (10) existing three (3)-storey rental townhouses will be retained and five (5) will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development.
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
Choice Properties · registration SM36037
Development of 123 Parkway Forest Drive, North York, ON M2J 0G1
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM36037: Development of 123 Parkway Forest Drive, North York, ON M2J 0G1 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 25 202228 NNY 17 SA at 123 Parkway Forest Dr: Site Plan application for the redevelopment of the lands with a 33-storey residential apartment building with 384 rental units, including six (6) affordable rental housing units. The existing 19-storey residential apartment building with 188 rental units will be retained. Five (5) of the ten (10) e… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development of 123 Parkway Forest Drive, North York, ON M2J 0G1
Matched fields
- address
- 123 PARKWAY FOREST DR
- application_address
- 123 PARKWAY FOREST DR
Choice Properties · registration SM31597
Development of 123 Parkway Forest Drive, North York ON M2J 0G1
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.79
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 SM31597: Development of 123 Parkway Forest Drive, North York ON M2J 0G1 (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 25 202228 NNY 17 SA at 123 Parkway Forest Dr: Site Plan application for the redevelopment of the lands with a 33-storey residential apartment building with 384 rental units, including six (6) affordable rental housing units. The existing 19-storey residential apartment building with 188 rental units will be retained. Five (5) of the ten (10) e… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development of 123 Parkway Forest Drive, North York ON M2J 0G1
Matched fields
- address
- 123 PARKWAY FOREST DR
- application_address
- 123 PARKWAY FOREST DR
Lobbying on linked registrations
2 linked registrations · 26 communications · 15 meetings · 5 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 6 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shelley Carroll | Councillor staff | 10 | 3 | 3 February 2025 |
| Councillor Shelley Carroll | Councillor staff | 7 | 3 | 14 February 2022 |
| Development Review | City staff | 4 | 4 | 22 November 2024 |
| Toronto Water | City staff | 2 | 2 | 21 November 2024 |
| Ward 17 Don Valley North | Member of council | 2 | 2 | 14 February 2022 |
| Shelley Carroll | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 22 October 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.
- ELAD Canada Operations IncSM20146 · 5 March 2014 · “123 Parkway Forest Drive”
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 17
14 lobbied · 20 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 14 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 20 | 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=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 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.