PETITION
Call for Collingwood Town Council to REJECT requested Official Plan Amendment and Town Zoning By-Law Amendment Application for Reverie
Town Public Consultation on Monday December 1st, 2025 ~2:00 pm
As concerned residents of Collingwood, we respectfully request that Collingwood Town Council reject the current application by the developer Sherwood Homes Ltd. (the “Developer”) requesting amendments to the Official Plan and Town Zoning By-Law to redesignate the Reverie property to permit a residential stacked townhouse development of twelve one-and-a-half storey buildings with a total of 124 units and 149 on-site parking spaces.
Why the Reverie Application is of concern to us – and should be of concern to the Town.
The Reverie Application is asking Town Council to approve an Official Plan amendment and Town Zoning By-Law amendment to redesignate the subject lands at 11403 Hwy 26 (the “Property”):
1) From their current “Existing Neighbourhoods” designation to “Existing Neighbourhoods – Site Specific” designation permitting 68 units per hectare.
2) To rezone the Property from “Residential Third Density Exception Thirty-Three (R3-33)” to “Residential Third Density Exception Zone (R3-XX), which would permit stacked townhouse dwelling units to be built on the Property and allow for 149 on-site parking spaces.
What does all this mean?
The Developer’s initial proposal was to build 60 bungalow townhouses on this 2.34 hectare Property, with a resulting density of 26 units per hectare. Currently, under the “Existing Neighbourhoods” designation, the maximum permitted density is 40 units per hectare. The Developer is asking to increase density to 68 units per hectare, a 70% increase above what the current designation allows, and a 260% increase over what the Developer originally proposed.
The Developer’s revised proposal is to build stacked townhouses, instead of bungalow townhouses. An amendment to the current Town Zoning By-law is required, to permit this type of housing on this Property.
The Town Zoning By-law 2010-040 requires townhouses to provide 2 parking spaces per unit. The Developer is proposing that 1.2 parking spaces be provided per unit, a total of 149 parking spaces, which would include 25 parking spaces designated for visitors. An amendment to the Zoning By-law is required to allow this reduced number of parking spaces.
Why does this matter?
The stated purpose Collingwood’s Official Plan is to establish objectives for land use, transportation, servicing and community improvement for the growth of Collingwood, within a context of relevant social, economic and environmental constraints, to obtain the most desirable living environment for present and future residents, and the citizens from the surrounding area who are utilizing the regional facilities within Collingwood.
The Official Plan is there to protect Collingwood – to take care of our environment, to protect the Town’s current and future residents who are fortunate enough to be part of this community, as well as to define the boundaries and limits within which developers are to build their plans and construct their projects.
The density proposed by the Developer is significantly higher than the density of other developments in the neighbourhood, which range from a high of 48 units per hectare at Waterstone, to Rupert’s Landing (34), Dockside (29), Lighthouse Point (26) and Greentree (25). The density that the Developer is requesting for Reverie is over 40% higher than the neighbourhood’s highest density development – Waterstone.
Given the type of housing being proposed, i.e. townhouses, as well as it’s proposed starting price point (from $400,000’s), this development will appeal to young families. Park land is a required part of all developments, yet there is zero park land for Reverie. The Developer is proposing a cash payment in lieu of park land. On more than one occasion in recent past, Members of Council have spoken about not allowing this practice to continue.
Parking is another issue. The Town Zoning By-Law’s requirement for townhouses is two parking spaces per dwelling unit – so 248 required parking spaces. The Developer is proposing a total of 149 parking spaces, one parking space per unit plus 25 visitor parking spots. Some of the proposed 124 units will be “two-car” families. Where will they park? The access road, Prince of Wales Drive, is a fire route and does not show parking being available. There is no street parking on Hwy 26. Congestion will be an ongoing issue along with the accompanying safety risks. The issues and risks will be compounded during the winter months, when there is ongoing snow to deal with.
The Developer’s desire for more density should not override the existing community’s environment and safety, place undue strain on the existing infrastructure, nor limit the new community’s residents in the basic amenities that they are to be provided for their everyday life i.e. parking, green space, safe environment.
The Reverie Application should not be approved as currently proposed.
Please sign the petition, comment below and circulate widely. There is no need to donate.
Concerned Residents of Lighthouse Point
Updates
Reached 250 supporters
December 1, 2025
Reached 100 supporters
November 29, 2025
130 Comments
As a resident of LHP I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the new development. With the ongoing development across the road and limited green space will endanger the natural habitat, eco system and negatively affect the water and sewage system.
I don’t support the proposal. Feels bait and switch by the developer. A money grab that is not in the towns best interest. We need various housing options - not a cookie cutter solution of boxes.
The Town needs to maintain existing as built density levels surrounding new developments. The Official Plan as approved by council must be followed. The practice of cash in lieu of parks is terrible and should STOP.
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.
Council should be considering the quality of the developments proposed, rather than constantly adjusting zoning to permit the highest number of units possible. The only winner with this level of density is the developer - everyone else loses.
No!
Residents of Ruperts Landing cannot leave the property by car, bike or on foot with crossing Hwy 26. It's already a very dangerous intersection without any traffic controls in place. To increase the local density is making a dangerous situation worse. The town will be responsible for an even more dangerous situation if they allow the builder to increase density beyond what has already been approved. There is no purpose for the builder to increase density except for more profit. Let's make sure the community and safety or put ahead of developers profit.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
PETITION
Call for Collingwood Town Council to REJECT requested Official Plan Amendment and Town Zoning By-Law Amendment Application for Reverie
Town Public Consultation on Monday December 1st, 2025 ~2:00 pm
As concerned residents of Collingwood, we respectfully request that Collingwood Town Council reject the current application by the developer Sherwood Homes Ltd. (the “Developer”) requesting amendments to the Official Plan and Town Zoning By-Law to redesignate the Reverie property to permit a residential stacked townhouse development of twelve one-and-a-half storey buildings with a total of 124 units and 149 on-site parking spaces.
Why the Reverie Application is of concern to us – and should be of concern to the Town.
The Reverie Application is asking Town Council to approve an Official Plan amendment and Town Zoning By-Law amendment to redesignate the subject lands at 11403 Hwy 26 (the “Property”):
1) From their current “Existing Neighbourhoods” designation to “Existing Neighbourhoods – Site Specific” designation permitting 68 units per hectare.
2) To rezone the Property from “Residential Third Density Exception Thirty-Three (R3-33)” to “Residential Third Density Exception Zone (R3-XX), which would permit stacked townhouse dwelling units to be built on the Property and allow for 149 on-site parking spaces.
What does all this mean?
The Developer’s initial proposal was to build 60 bungalow townhouses on this 2.34 hectare Property, with a resulting density of 26 units per hectare. Currently, under the “Existing Neighbourhoods” designation, the maximum permitted density is 40 units per hectare. The Developer is asking to increase density to 68 units per hectare, a 70% increase above what the current designation allows, and a 260% increase over what the Developer originally proposed.
The Developer’s revised proposal is to build stacked townhouses, instead of bungalow townhouses. An amendment to the current Town Zoning By-law is required, to permit this type of housing on this Property.
The Town Zoning By-law 2010-040 requires townhouses to provide 2 parking spaces per unit. The Developer is proposing that 1.2 parking spaces be provided per unit, a total of 149 parking spaces, which would include 25 parking spaces designated for visitors. An amendment to the Zoning By-law is required to allow this reduced number of parking spaces.
Why does this matter?
The stated purpose Collingwood’s Official Plan is to establish objectives for land use, transportation, servicing and community improvement for the growth of Collingwood, within a context of relevant social, economic and environmental constraints, to obtain the most desirable living environment for present and future residents, and the citizens from the surrounding area who are utilizing the regional facilities within Collingwood.
The Official Plan is there to protect Collingwood – to take care of our environment, to protect the Town’s current and future residents who are fortunate enough to be part of this community, as well as to define the boundaries and limits within which developers are to build their plans and construct their projects.
The density proposed by the Developer is significantly higher than the density of other developments in the neighbourhood, which range from a high of 48 units per hectare at Waterstone, to Rupert’s Landing (34), Dockside (29), Lighthouse Point (26) and Greentree (25). The density that the Developer is requesting for Reverie is over 40% higher than the neighbourhood’s highest density development – Waterstone.
Given the type of housing being proposed, i.e. townhouses, as well as it’s proposed starting price point (from $400,000’s), this development will appeal to young families. Park land is a required part of all developments, yet there is zero park land for Reverie. The Developer is proposing a cash payment in lieu of park land. On more than one occasion in recent past, Members of Council have spoken about not allowing this practice to continue.
Parking is another issue. The Town Zoning By-Law’s requirement for townhouses is two parking spaces per dwelling unit – so 248 required parking spaces. The Developer is proposing a total of 149 parking spaces, one parking space per unit plus 25 visitor parking spots. Some of the proposed 124 units will be “two-car” families. Where will they park? The access road, Prince of Wales Drive, is a fire route and does not show parking being available. There is no street parking on Hwy 26. Congestion will be an ongoing issue along with the accompanying safety risks. The issues and risks will be compounded during the winter months, when there is ongoing snow to deal with.
The Developer’s desire for more density should not override the existing community’s environment and safety, place undue strain on the existing infrastructure, nor limit the new community’s residents in the basic amenities that they are to be provided for their everyday life i.e. parking, green space, safe environment.
The Reverie Application should not be approved as currently proposed.
Please sign the petition, comment below and circulate widely. There is no need to donate.
Concerned Residents of Lighthouse Point
Updates
Reached 250 supporters
December 1, 2025
Reached 100 supporters
November 29, 2025
130 Comments
Under no circumstances should this density be permitted without BOTH the traffic light at 26 and Gun Club Road being in place, AND park / pool space for kids. Otherwise, we will have an influx of trespassers looking towards our beach.
As a resident of LHP I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the new development. With the ongoing development across the road and limited green space will endanger the natural habitat, eco system and negatively affect the water and sewage system.
I don’t support the proposal. Feels bait and switch by the developer. A money grab that is not in the towns best interest. We need various housing options - not a cookie cutter solution of boxes.
The Town needs to maintain existing as built density levels surrounding new developments. The Official Plan as approved by council must be followed. The practice of cash in lieu of parks is terrible and should STOP.
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.
Council should be considering the quality of the developments proposed, rather than constantly adjusting zoning to permit the highest number of units possible. The only winner with this level of density is the developer - everyone else loses.
No!
Residents of Ruperts Landing cannot leave the property by car, bike or on foot with crossing Hwy 26. It's already a very dangerous intersection without any traffic controls in place. To increase the local density is making a dangerous situation worse. The town will be responsible for an even more dangerous situation if they allow the builder to increase density beyond what has already been approved. There is no purpose for the builder to increase density except for more profit. Let's make sure the community and safety or put ahead of developers profit.
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 500 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
Under no circumstances should this density be permitted without BOTH the traffic light at 26 and Gun Club Road being in place, AND park / pool space for kids. Otherwise, we will have an influx of trespassers looking towards our beach.