Skip to main content

Collingwood Reverie Development

130 Comments

S
Shelley Davidson
10 months ago

Do not let the developer increase density.

M
Marion Heintzman
10 months ago

Parking, shrinking green space and density need to be considered in a more responsible manner. This plan is too large for the area. Stop putting profit first. Green buy outs should not be allowable.

A
Anonymous
10 months ago

Obscene

P
Peter Hambly
10 months ago

I agree with the carefully prepared submissions

G
Greg Linton
10 months ago

Absolutely unacceptable we need lower density here obviously.

D
Deborah Lee
10 months ago

Please listen to us.

A
Ashley Stewart
10 months ago

This is crazy! You cannot approve this.

H
Heather Coolahan
10 months ago

I understand that housing development is necessary, but let us be mindful to pursue good, smart development as opposed to bad. Are we not tired of developers putting in a plan that complies with the city, only to have the developer ask for serious amendments that are against the city’s official development plans. This is just pure greed. Who is planning the city? Collingwood or the developers?

M
Marye McCaig
10 months ago

This development is already over sized, to add more density to it would not be a benefit to Collingwood. Both traffic and infrastructure would be compromised. Parking is most important and park land with a development of this size.

S
Sandra Sartor
10 months ago

I definitely oppose this proposal! They should uphold the existing zoning by-laws with NO changes. The town council should also make sure that the developer includes designated park land for this site.

D
Drew Harrison
10 months ago

Unacceptable - you got approved in 2023 for 60 bungalow townhomes. You don’t get to come back 2 yrs later to more than double to 125 stacked units. Respect the environment.

M
Marlene Hacker
10 months ago

I do not think that the developer should be allowed to go ahead with increasing the density of the new proposed development. It would bring too much congestion and would not be good for our environment to have that many more cars on our road.

B
BARBARA FOSTER
10 months ago

I understand that Collingwood and area has a deficit in affordable homes. This development is clearly not helping in this category. Greed for more from developers never helps the community. Giving money to the town coffers instead of park/Enviroment space only helps the city not the community at large. With ko park space, inevitably all the residents/renters will just cross the street and utilize the amenities at Lighthouse Point that I pay a huge amount for property taxes and our beautiful amenities. Which all of the surrounding area believe they can use for free. High density never wins for the community only the developers. Once the project is finished they simply walk away and win with deeper pockets of money. Collingwood Mayor Hamlin and council please stand up and do the right thing for this community area!

M
Marta Knights
10 months ago

This amount of urban density will be detrimental to the existing residents.

B
Barb Castellan
10 months ago

For all the critical issues listed in petition, i wholeheartedly disagree with the proposed amendment

M
Martina Krebs
10 months ago

The parking is an issue. The Wyldwoods development down the street has one spot per unit and it causes a terrible issue. I move out of that development due to parking issues. A minimum of two parking spots plus visitor parking the minimum required. The location requires a car to safely get anywhere. There are no amenities within walking distance. I am against any increase in density for this development.

R
Richard Box
10 months ago

City council cannot change in midstream. The changes do not represent what’s best for the community. They aren’t providing any parks or recreation areas. Think about children

L
Linda Deenen
10 months ago

The town utilities are already strained, to allow higher density housing is putting unnecessary strain on this.

K
Karen Prestaya
10 months ago

The high density is not acceptable.

D
Deb Shaver
10 months ago

This proposal is meant to appeal to young families. There is no playground are park area. Also there will be no space for couples who both have cars.