Comments - Property Development & Land Usage (verbatim)
What is a 'residential lake'!? And as opposed to what other kind of lake?
"Carrying capacity" is still but one scientists views, an untested theory open to adjustment and frankly in a legal sense question. That said every body of water has a population limit. Muskoka as a whole is patently over-populated by cottages. The real question is who will abandon without compensation thier properties. If carrying capacity is truly a legitimate concept then Leonard Lake is grossly over populated now and the issue is who of us and how many must voluntarily walk away from our investments.
so long as development and/or redevelopment meets township and county standards, the environment will be respected. You must define carrying capacity before the aforementioned questions can be considered by respondents.
A few questions in one here. I'm certainly supportive of maintaining a shoreline residential feel to the lake with appropriate regulations in place to determine development limits. But I'm not sure carrying capacity has been defined outside of the Lake System Health Program at the District, which no longer works by maximum number of lots and hasn't for years.
I am equally concerned with cottage replacement as new development, tear down a cottage and replace with a much larger home, this is the same a lot creation in many respects.
Providing all new builds are created with proper set backs and planning rules followed I have no issues.
The lake is very densely populated by any reasonable standard and any new lot creation should be prohibated.
Once again - I feel the lake association has taken an aggressive political stance here. If families want to sever their lots and it’s within the Bylaws then they should be allowed to. It is EXTREMELY divisive when the association is used to lobby a political agenda to block a nice family from severing their lots. We are here to promote community, togetherness and belonging. This did the opposite
As the lake is OT and also has about 60 more cottages on it (or was it 80?) than it really should, I think it's extremely important to protect it against further development.
we are a land locked lake and can only handle so many people.
overdevelopment is biggest problem lake faces, seems half of residents want to preserve nature and water quality and other half want power boats, seadoos, big cottages
I believe that it should continue to be possible for existing properties to be able to upgrade, restore/renovate as needed.
That alone is reason to restrict New property creation.
As sustainable development will occur within existing properties , additional new properties could threaten to overload the lake's capacity to manage and survive.
I know that lake association tried to halt the development of the new lots on the north shore. I understand that these are going in Anyway. Appalling that the district of muskoka or whoever approves this is more interested in their tax base than maintaining the water quality of our small lake.
An over capacity lake is not viable. Very disappointed in the approval of the lot severance on the North Shore
The township is all too ready to provide building variances. Our lake is already overcrowded with cottages.
This is the number one issue as the politicians in office are captive to developers.
the lake is twice its sustainable carrying capacity. development and redevelopment needs to stop or the downward slope will sharpen
Redevelopment is critical because we always need to maintain and rebuild what we have to keep things viable on the lake.