Collingwood Reverie Development

I’m absolutely opposed to ruining the beautiful landscape of Collingwood and having amendments made to the occupancy levels. That area already looks over populated with those awful buildings that really don’t fit in to our rural look.

This is a total Bait and switch.To agree to this is endorsing a lie by the Developers.

We have already lost our view of Blue Mountain at the front gate because of all those condos that were built. We come to Collingwood for the green space and the less populated/quieter environment. Now you want to build more housing. We have already lost so much of our green space, please don’t take away any more.

Lighthouses density is on average 25 units per hectare. If you add in our environmental lands and soft landscaping 17 to 18 units per hectare. Having an application for increased density to the levels requested is not in the communities best. Lighthouse point collectively is one of the largest tax base and voting base in Collingwood. For 35 years Lighthouse Point has contributed financially in a very significant way to the town of Collingwood with little services or amenities provided in return. Please don’t add further insult to Lighthouse Point by approving an application for such a gross overdensity

We do not need any more buildings around Lighthouse Point. It is bad enough that you had granted the building of the condo across the front gate that has now ruined the view for all people the scenic view of Blue Mountain. We cannot keep increasing the density on any open land that is available, you have to consider that some people have moved away from densely populated cities to live in harmony with homes surrounded by green spaces. It is being ruined by a lot of homes and condominiums that have been built in Collingwood. Please for God sake reconsider this application for the people living in this community and not for the greed and money that the urban sprawl brings to the town. Enough is Enough

* There is zero park land for Reverie/Silvercreek, with apartments occupancy especially catering to younger active demographics. * There are NO amenities (besides a swing slide) or park areas shown on the current site plan or landscape drawings. * The Developer is proposing a cash payment in lieu of park land. * Will cause undue strain on the existing infrastructure. * Traffic impact. * Various safety concerns.

Enforce the bylaw and ordinance No change! ! Wetlands issue! Infrastructure issue, Sewage and water and road traffic issue. . Even the original application was too high density. Two cars per resident parking issue 150 more units ridiculous!!!!!!!! This land does not absorb water I have been watching the lakes forming from the upper floors at Rupert’s. You are asking for disaster!!!!!!

Security is of great concern at Lighthouse Point. We cannot prevent all these new people from accessing our community and using our facilities. John

How will pressure to access GB be handled? The Princeton Shores access is already stressed!

We need to keep this Council in line per our (town residents) election choices and not per Doug Ford wants

Roads are too busy already

The existing community’s environment and safety would most certainly be negatively effected.

I do not agree with the proposed changes and support the e Lighthouse Point presentation .

Population density in this area and the volume/flow of traffic on Hwy 26 is already a problem, but higher density will cause far more problems than just this. This proposal must be rejected.

Concerns that there isn't adequate green space to support the needs of the future occupants. An improved network of trails is necessary to enable more easy access to public spaces and the town. This is important to cut down on the natural inclination of those future residents to trespass on nearby condo developments and properties.

Please consider the facts and issues of this unacceptable request and vote to say no to the developer and vote to protect the social and environmental future of Collingwood and the people who live here.

I hope the town council does the right thing and rejects this high density development.

Too dense for location and size of property. 26 is already too busy ...this sets precedent for more high density builds ..infrastructure for more population is not available!

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.

We don't need more density. Especially when town infrastructure can't support it !