Collingwood Reverie Development

Traffic woes in an area whereby the development absolutely NEEDS cars due to its location of ZERO walk score should be enough. Development profile of young families with kids with ZERO parkland and amnemities of greensapce etc and it makes no sense. In particular where across the road is Lighthouse with many amnemities to tempt. Why change zoning just for developer greed????....Please dont.

Rejecting requested Official Plan Amendment and Town Zoning By-Law Amendment Application for Reverie

Why should developers be permitted to pull a bait and switch? This was probably their plan in the first place! No more development without green space should be allowed. There has already been a significant increase in traffic recently and the building of additional units will only make this situation more dangerous. We residents at Lighthouse Point will, undoubtedly, pay the price for this over-densification, as the residents of this development project will, more than likely, trespass onto our property to take advantage of our walking paths, waterfront access and recreational facilities which we pay for. I ask that Town Council deny the request made by the developer.

They already have town approval to build these row houses and now they come back for more changes after the fact? A requested density increase of 260% without allowance for sufficient parking and any open space is why there are zoning bylaws in the first place no? Lets just say NO to this careless over-reach request!

The requested density is too high and is beyond the existing density of nearby development projects.

As outlined in the text of this petition, there are many reasons for NOT approving this request for an increase in density.    As well, keep in mind that there are already 187 units in the Silvercreek apartments located right next door, the residents of which all share this combined geographic area.  The initial approved density will already test the limits of this space, adding more density would be ill advised. I do wonder if this is an attempt by the developer to game the approval system by initially submitting a lower density to facilitate approval, but now asking for an amendment for increased density, the goal of which had been the intent all along?  Very disingenuous if this is the case.

Zoning restrictions were put in place for a reason. A developer knows what they are before acquiring property. If they can not make a business case for the property without ammendments to zoning, they should not invest. At LHP, we have more than wnough to deal with re: the occupancy of Skyline's apartments and the added congestion and security risks that this will impose. It was an appaling clearing of the woods and natural area that has brought us to this point and now we are considering zoning amendments? Please reject this proposal.

As a resident of Lighthouse Point....directly adjacent to the subject lands, the increase in the population density from 40 units per net hectare for Low-Rise buildings to permit 68 units per net hectare, to facilitate a residential stacked townhouse development comprised 12 one-and-a-half storey buildings (Blocks) with a total of 124 dwelling units and 149 parking spaces, will have major impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and the Town of Collingwood. This is typical of developers - foot in the door - push for more financial return later. In the stage 1 approval, Council never addressed or tried to mitigate the impact on the existing residential areas...in particular the private property at LHP. The only action was to provide public notice/education on respecting private property. We are prohibited from installing gates to keep trespassers out but left entirely to the condo owners to pay for a guard to monitor access. The increased density will put more pressure on our property, traffic, noise, and services such as Dr's, hospital capacity, etc. Please do not allow for this density explosion to occur....Council as a whole should represent existing residents concerns and not money driven developers. WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED.

Please reject the developers proposal to increase density. The density in this area has already reached capacity. Hyw 26 cannot handle any more traffic.

I fail to understand why we should approve such an increase in density because the market changed and the developer could not sell the units at the pricing for the approved numbers. Adjust your designs or wait it out. We can not approve the increase in density which combined with the Skyline project would put over 350 new units on that parcel of land. Too much for the area to handle with traffic etc!

I oppose the suggested increasing of the permitted density of units per hectare. The increase will be determintal to the environment and existing neighbourhoods. There will not be sufficient parking spaces. The overflow parking may result in dangerous situations for the community.

I oppose the suggested increasing of the permitted density of units per hectare. The increase will be determintal to the environment and existing neighbourhoods. There will not be sufficient parking spaces. The overflow parking may result in dangerous situations for the community.

The development of this property should be designed to be complementary to the surrounding neighbourhood. More parking is needed and more green space is needed and recreational facilities are needed. There needs to be a good landscaping design. Density should not be increased. The highway setbacks should allow space for buffer trees and a cycling/walking path consistent with the design for other developments along Highway 26. The design for what has been build thus far is not attractive, It is important to try to fix this for the remaining parts of the property by adding lots of greenery etc., not make it worse with too much density.

Overdevelopment of this area is not progressive planning.

I’m concerned about how the density will impact the flow of traffic on Hwy 26

Totally against increased density

It’s bad enough that the developer has been permitted to build city-style apartment condos on this site (very inappropriate for this area). Increased density and inadequate parking is recipe for even more congestion, safety issues, and trespassing onto the Lighthouse Point properties. Say “no” to this application.

With added density, come more traffic. And yet, no foot traffic/bicycle traffic improvements. Rejection of this proposal is paramount to safety.

Collingwood Town Council - If I wanted greater density and not enough parking, I would move to Toronto, where there are amenities to offset these factors. Greater density and lack of parking also has a broader effect on traffic and safety. Please don't accept the amendment. Preserve Collingwood as a beautiful and outstanding small town in Ontario.

Density is too high, not enough parking for residents and visitors, some type of parkland/playground should be mandatory - otherwise the residents will come to LHP for the playground and parkland!