Allowing this amendment will set yet another precedent for inappropriate development on a given site. The by-law is valid as it is.
B
Brian Donnelly
8 months ago
Existing Zoning By-Law must be adhered to
D
Don Horning
8 months ago
The council needs to stand up for the decisions they make. Do not let developers request amendments on everything. If you accept this 'bait-and-switch,' it will continue to be the norm.
P
Paul Kochberg
8 months ago
The "bait and switch" comment appears to be on point. The Official Plan and the Zoning By-law were presumably adopted after careful consideration for all elements that are taken into account for the safety and well-being of the Town and the community. There is no valid reason for exceptions to be made to the Plan and the By-law.
D
Doug Lynch
8 months ago
Density too high for infrastructure, traffic management and security in the area of LHP.
D
Dan Whaley
8 months ago
We need a gate and a barb wire fence! Count on trespassers and bylaw enforcement officers handing out tickets!
J
John Jackson
8 months ago
Typical Developer move. Shoot for the moon and see what happens. By-laws were created for a reason. Stick to them.
D
Dee Smith
8 months ago
VIP to keep in place Zoning bylaws created previously by ‘Those’ who understood the importance of protecting & providing living space for all.
M
Michael Imort
8 months ago
Please do not allow yet another developer to use 'bait and switch' tactics to the detriment of all.
L
Lynn Robertson
8 months ago
Given the many valid concerns with a large increase over the maximum
density currently permitted and how it greatly affects the livability of the area, I strongly do not support Reveries
application. Further, I do not think this warrants an "exemption" which serves to benefit only the builder!
P
Peter Stewart
8 months ago
There needs to be a large public outcry against this amendment. The city will be tempted to let it pass seeing the benefit of increased property tax revenue. This is a poor property development plan. Not people friendly.
D
Don Robertson
8 months ago
Featured
Strongly oppose this development and council should reject this application. This is not the model Collingwood should follow. High density, no parking and no green space is a model for urban core Toronto not Collingwood. The town should be better than this. Step up.
A
Andrew Crighton
8 months ago
This hard-to-believe proposal is a developer’s dream and a neighborhood’s nightmare. How are all those people going share the space with others in a residential area that is already at a critical level of density? Importantly, how are they all going to be able to access the lakefront which will be just a few hundred meters away… with nothing but private property and one of Ontario’s busiest main highways blocking their path to it. Are the developers making proximity to the lake a key selling point? If so, they are misleading their buyers, the results will be catastrophic and it will come back to bite City Hall for its unrealistic decision to let the development proceed in the manner proposed.
S
Scott Burns
8 months ago
I thought the plan was to not build anymore along 26. This will already cause traffic havoc.
N
Nancy Burns
8 months ago
Whatever happened to no more condos along highway 26???
L
Laura Jackson
8 months ago
We don’t need more density in this area.
The traffic is bad enough!
I
Irene Parker
8 months ago
The last thing Collingwood needs is more high rise buildings. The iservices etc. are already overstretched.
G
Gail Kovacs
8 months ago
Totally object to both the design and to the attempts to modify the developers proposal. In addition to all that has been said, any further increases in density just serves to deter current residents in the area from staying and potential new residents from committing to Collingwood.
Should stay within the current guidelines
Absolutely against this request of the developer.
Allowing this amendment will set yet another precedent for inappropriate development on a given site. The by-law is valid as it is.
Existing Zoning By-Law must be adhered to
The council needs to stand up for the decisions they make. Do not let developers request amendments on everything. If you accept this 'bait-and-switch,' it will continue to be the norm.
The "bait and switch" comment appears to be on point. The Official Plan and the Zoning By-law were presumably adopted after careful consideration for all elements that are taken into account for the safety and well-being of the Town and the community. There is no valid reason for exceptions to be made to the Plan and the By-law.
Density too high for infrastructure, traffic management and security in the area of LHP.
We need a gate and a barb wire fence! Count on trespassers and bylaw enforcement officers handing out tickets!
Typical Developer move. Shoot for the moon and see what happens. By-laws were created for a reason. Stick to them.
VIP to keep in place Zoning bylaws created previously by ‘Those’ who understood the importance of protecting & providing living space for all.
Please do not allow yet another developer to use 'bait and switch' tactics to the detriment of all.
Given the many valid concerns with a large increase over the maximum density currently permitted and how it greatly affects the livability of the area, I strongly do not support Reveries application. Further, I do not think this warrants an "exemption" which serves to benefit only the builder!
There needs to be a large public outcry against this amendment. The city will be tempted to let it pass seeing the benefit of increased property tax revenue. This is a poor property development plan. Not people friendly.
Strongly oppose this development and council should reject this application. This is not the model Collingwood should follow. High density, no parking and no green space is a model for urban core Toronto not Collingwood. The town should be better than this. Step up.
This hard-to-believe proposal is a developer’s dream and a neighborhood’s nightmare. How are all those people going share the space with others in a residential area that is already at a critical level of density? Importantly, how are they all going to be able to access the lakefront which will be just a few hundred meters away… with nothing but private property and one of Ontario’s busiest main highways blocking their path to it. Are the developers making proximity to the lake a key selling point? If so, they are misleading their buyers, the results will be catastrophic and it will come back to bite City Hall for its unrealistic decision to let the development proceed in the manner proposed.
I thought the plan was to not build anymore along 26. This will already cause traffic havoc.
Whatever happened to no more condos along highway 26???
We don’t need more density in this area. The traffic is bad enough!
The last thing Collingwood needs is more high rise buildings. The iservices etc. are already overstretched.
Totally object to both the design and to the attempts to modify the developers proposal. In addition to all that has been said, any further increases in density just serves to deter current residents in the area from staying and potential new residents from committing to Collingwood.