NEWS, LOST & FOUND, BLOG POSTS

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • September 03, 2022 11:02 AM | Anonymous member

    There is a black and red towable type tube washed up at the shore at Picnic Point. Probably blew off someone's dock during the wind storm.

  • August 24, 2022 2:29 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    August 27th Lake Plan Meeting Cancelled

    In an effort to solicit feedback from the Muldrew property owners on the proposed Lake Plan, the MLCA included an outline of the proposed plan in the spring Dock Drop and invited comments. Very few comments were initially submitted but they have been increasing in quantity since the July 9th Town Hall and the discussion on the Lake Plan at the August 13th AGM.  On behalf of the Lake Plan Committee, I would like to thank you for your engagement and comments.

    One of the initial objectives of the Committee was to conclude the community feedback during the summer months, when most of our community is at the lake. We have done a lot of engagement this summer and have collected many comments, to which we are responding.  However, given the high volume of comments still being received and the desire to properly assess and respond to each one of them, our revised document is not ready.  As such, the Lake Plan Committee feels that it is prudent to:

    • Postpone the planned September submission to the Town.
    • Cancel the planned August 27th Town Hall Meeting.
    • Continue communicate dialogue on the issues of keen interest to the community.
    • Circulate a revised draft as soon as we can in the Fall.
    • Hold a virtual Town Hall in the Fall to discuss these changes. 
    • Hold a follow-up virtual Town Hall in the spring. 

    This will allow for additional community input and refinement of the Lake Plan to reflect comments from as many participants as possible. 

    We will continue to pursue this important work and hope that you will continue to participate in the process as we move forward.  Thank you, again, for your engagement and your patience - our revision to the existing Lake Plan will be stronger for it.

    On behalf of the Lake Plan Committee and the MLCA


    Ted Alley

    President, MLCA

    president@muldrewlakes.ca


  • August 21, 2022 2:01 PM | Anonymous member

    I posted the following on the "Muldrew Lake is My Second Home" Facebook page a week ago. An Administrator of that Facebook page cut off any further comments on this post and suggested that they be posted, instead, on this Association page, which I am now doing, although it will likely be seen by very few members, nor by any non-member cottagers:

    August 14, 2022

    I am writing this post to express my objections to the timing and approval process being followed by the Board of Directors of the Muldrew Lake Cottagers’ Association, with respect to a proposed Lake Plan update, which it intends to submit to the Town of Gravenhurst for incorporation into the Official Plan and zoning bylaws of the Town.

    The Board has, no doubt, spent countless hours and considerable effort to develop a Plan update, publicize it, and solicit feedback. I believe, however, that the majority of cottage owners on the lake are still unaware of, or do not fully understand, the impact that the proposed Plan Update would have. I have no doubt that an even greater percentage of non-members are similarly unaware or do not fully understand it.

    On July 9th, an open house was held at Memorial Pines to review a draft of a Lake Plan update, as proposed by the Board. Immediately following that open house, along with many others, I submitted in writing my concerns with this proposal and looked forward to the discussion that was next scheduled to take place as part of the Annual General Meeting of the association, yesterday. I presumed that there would be an amended draft presented at that meeting.

    As it turned out, the Board had not yet had time to consider all of the submissions that came out of the July 9th meeting and no revised draft was distributed. There was, however, further discussion of the Plan update, as previously distributed, although there was no summary of the concerns that had been submitted to the Board, following the July 9th meeting. It was clear that not everyone at yesterday’s meeting had a good understanding of the impact of the changes. Despite the best efforts of the Board to publicize its work and solicit feedback, many members have not paid close attention to the proposed changes. While many of the members in attendance, yesterday, were likely in favour of the proposals, perhaps with some modifications, by my guess, there were only 60 to 70 people in attendance and some of those were couples representing a single property.

    My understanding is that there are some 400 cottages on the Lake and that the association represents less than half of the property owners (as the 203 association members may not represent 200 cottage properties.) Of the cottages represented by the Association, I am guessing that only 30% to 35% were represented at the meeting, with many of those representatives still unclear as to the impact of the proposed changes to the Plan.

    During the discussion of the proposals yesterday, it was indicated that a revised draft would be circulated prior to the final, scheduled Open House to discuss the plan, which is to be on August 26, less than two weeks from now. It then came out that the Board, after taking into account whatever feedback it received from yesterday’s discussion and will receive from the August 26 Open House, will then finalize a Plan Update to submit to the Town without submitting the final document to the Association members for ratification.

    First of all, I believe it is wrong for the Board to distribute what may or not be a final proposal to the members, just one week before Labour Day weekend, after which many cottagers close up for the season or come back to the lake few more times before winter. This makes it very hard to communicate with other association members, in person, about whatever becomes the final proposal.

    Secondly, I believe that the proposal will have such substantial impact on the members that it should be submitted to the full membership for ratification and that this should be done at a time of year when it is easy to canvass cottagers in person, on the lake.

    Thirdly, without being able to show the support of a majority of cottage owners for the proposed changes, a strong argument will likely be made to the Town Council that the Plan Update, adopted by the Board, does not represent anything close to a majority of the property owners on the lake.


  • August 21, 2022 1:50 PM | Anonymous member

    The following are comments related to the Muldrew Lakes Plan Update, as distributed to property owners in June, 2022. Our cottage is located at 510 Peninsula Road.

    My wife and I have been on the lake for 24 years and are at the cottage year-round.

    • For us, the number one issue regarding enjoyment of our property relates to noise and wake on the lake, but these are issues that are beyond the authority of the municipal council.
    •   Our number 2 issue is maintaining a healthy water quality.
    • Our number 3 issue is development close to shore which is visible from the lake.

    We are in support of proposing amendments to the Muldrew Lake sections of the Gravenhurst official plan and zoning by-laws. However, we do not support the blanket limitation of building size of 3,500 sf. We believe that, in addition to enforcing the current setback requirement,  new criteria should be established in relation to the size of building visible from the lakefront and in relation to the amount of lake frontage  If a property has a large lake frontage and  the building width does not exceed a permitted size, then development on the roadside of a building should not be limited if it is behind the portion that can be seen from the lake.


    We object to the use of the wording (on pages 6-7 of the dock handout), “modest development and reasonable redevelopment, in keeping with the character of the lakes” in describing what development should be permitted. There is no definition of the terms “modest” and “reasonable”. If someone built a small, but very expensive, house, would that be considered to not be modest”? If someone developed the interior of a large property, limiting the amount that could be viewed from the lake, why should that be considered “unreasonable”?

    We also object to the concern that is expressed on page 6 of the dock drop handout, about the transition to “more permanently inhabited homes on the Muldrew Lakes”. We welcome more year-round habitation, provided that it is within environmental safeguards.

    For smaller projects, we believe that the expense and time involved for a site evaluation or site plan should not be required, provided that the development complies with the zoning by-law (which should be in accordance with the official plan.) If a proposed development is not in compliance and a request is being made for a variance, then there should be a site evaluation or site plan requirement.

    As we understand the proposed changes, we would not be permitted to add an addition to our residence on the roadside, for example, for an at-home office, storage, or workout room, even if it would not be visible from the lake. We do not believe that this is warranted, in order to protect the nature of our shoreline. Rather, we would consider this to be both modest and reasonable.


  • August 17, 2022 11:34 AM | Anonymous member

    We are writing to express our opinions and concerns with regards to the current Lake Plan proposals, in the hopes to create an open, transparent process whereby all cottagers on Lake Muldrew can voice their thoughts for consideration and input with regards to proposed changes currently under discussion.


    We will be unable to attend the August 27th meeting in person, as we will not be by the Lake that weekend, but would like our views shared at the meeting as well as in other places where others can see our concerns (more on this below).

    Our cottage is located at 486 Peninsula drive, we have 18 acres of land, and 500 feet of frontage.

    We appreciate the tremendous amount of time, effort and resources that have been invested into bringing forth a discussion on how our community can best enjoy and also preserve the character of the lake. 

    Our issues can be summarized as follow
    Objections
    Process and timeline
    Recommendations for representation and transparency

    While we are in support with efforts being made to ensure the Lake remains sustainable and enjoyable and the need to revisit the current official plan and zoning bylaws and propose amendments we believe that any limitations ought to be relative to lot and frontage size rather than absolute values.

    Specifically our objections are as follow
    a. We object to a blanket limitation of building size of 375m2 (4,000 square feet) which we believe is the current measure regardless of lot size or frontage. We would be supportive of limits that would relate to (i) frontage size and (ii) lot coverage so that a property with 1 acre and a property with 30 acres would not be subject to the same constraints, but rather each commensurate with the property.
    The size of the building behind an allowed frontage should have no bearing on the character of the lake, and should be permissible based on coverage ratios.

    b. We object to descriptions such as “modest and reasonable” which are subjective and can create a wide variety of interpretations.

    c. We object to the proposal to limit the ability for lots to be severed, without regard for the sae of the lot. As per above, severing a 1 acre lot and severing a 30 acre lot are not the same and do not compare in terms of density. Lots below a certain size could be limited, while lots above other size could and should be severed pending environmental assessments, and the abiding of bylaw for future builds.

    e. We object to the restriction of “more permanently inhabited homes” on the Lake, and think the focus should be always on the proper use of the property wit regards to septic systems, etc rather than lacing an arbitrary cap on how long cottagers can enjoy their beloved places.



    With regards to due process and timeline, are concerns are as follow:
    a. Representation:
    According to its mission statement, The Muldrew Lakes Cottagers’ Association (MLCA) is committed to fostering a co-operative and mutually caring home for all our cottagers while paying special attention to the unique environment and ecosystem of our lakes.  

    We understand that the cottagers association is said to represent about half of the cottages on the Lake, but a decision made on behalf of all cottages should take into account the opinions of members as well as non members. It is our understanding, based on the survey results posted that 188 people responded to the survey. Further, only 176 respondents were owners, or partial owners.

    We believe there are over 400 cottages on the Lake (this is data from 2011, as I have been unable to find an update, and cannot find how many cottages there are on the lake on the MLCA website, but have been told it is close to 400) and hearing from as many people as possible is critical given the seriousness of the proposed changes. Further, proposals to the town from the Cottagers’s association may be presumed by council to be endorsed by all/most cottagers, when insufficient efforts to ensure this is the case have been made to date.

    b. Timeline:
    Following two years of a pandemic, the meetings have been scheduled quite close to one another. At a time when many cottagers have opted to travel abroad after years of being unable to do so, moving quickly on these proposals, risks not including many whose voices should be heard. We say this from experience as we have been travelling (finally) and have come home to significant pressure to move forward on an initiative that requires time to absorb.
    As mentioned above, we will be unable to attend the meeting on August 27th and suspect we will not be the only ones.

    When can we expect to receive a copy of the amendments to the Lake Plan for review? We have not yet seen anything in terms of when to expect an amendment so we can process it before the next meeting? We would like to ensure that our views are submitted in writing prior to this meeting.

    c. Transparency:
    It is important for all voices not not only be heard by the board, but to be shared for respectful and candid discussion amongst the cottagers. Providing an arena for opinions to be shared is an important process in achieving consensus. While we recently became aware that we could post on the MLCA’s blog, this is not an option that has been made widely available. Based on discussions with other cottagers, there is a lack of understanding on how to make our voices heard.

    Although we have been encouraged to post on the Muldrew Lake Cottagers association blog, this page requires a login, thereby eliminating any non members from posting.

    d. Clarity and fairness regarding Process for reaching final recommendations

    Against the above background, we are still unclear as to how everyone’s input will be considered, by whom and how the various suggestions will be incorporated into the final recommendation. We have not been made aware of a vote, or process for review of the various suggestions and a way to ensure that any proposals made on behalf of the cottagers actually, fairly and comprehensively reflect our view.

    Will there be a vote on each recommendation? If so, when will it be? We are in agreement with other proposals put forth that issues of such serious impact should be ratified by a vast majority of cottagers, and agree with the 2/3s majority.

    Will all cottagers, regardless of membership status on the MLCA be invited to provide input before the final proposal goes into the town? If so, what is the method of communication as we have seen no posters, nor received any emails with regards to this.

    Will submissions to the city include the gamut of options and recommendations or will they simply be distilled to the simplest form so that one size is made to fit all the vast diversity of cottages on the lake?


    In short, our requests can be summarized as follow
    Constraints on size of cottage and ability to sever should be based on proportion relative to lot size rather than absolute values.
    The process for submitting proposed changes should be slowed down to ensure
    Representations: All cottagers in the Lake have time to review and process the proposed changes (at this point it is less than a two week time frame during a period when many are on vacation, which is insufficient)

    Transparency and the ability for the community to engage in respectful open discourse with regards to issues that will affect us all

    A vote should be passed by 2/3 of cottage owners on the lake or at minimum, 2/3 of the association members at a vote taking place at a time and through a process that allows them all to be heard and attend.


  • August 15, 2022 8:15 PM | Anonymous member
    I posted the following on Facebook yesterday. I believe that the current proposals need to be significantly revamped and any final proposals should be submitted to a ratification vote by all cottage owners on the lake. This should be done next summer when cottage owners can be properly contacted. 

    I (Vaughn) was unfortunately unable to attend the MLCA annual general meeting on Saturday as I was self isolating.

    I understand that there was some discussion about the proposed lake plan and that there will a special meeting Saturday morning, August 27 to more fully discuss the topic.

    I understand that the point was made that the MCLA represents only about half the cottage owners on the lake and at the very least 51% of all owners should have to approve any submission to the Town of Gravenhurst.

    Given the profound impact on the current rights of cottage owners to expand or rebuild as well as the potential negative impact on resale values, the approval threshold should appropriately be 60% or possibly 70%.

    Owners of smaller cottages within 30 metres of the water get particularly hard hit by the proposals. The majority of cottages are in this category.

    An example of the impact would be a cottage owner under 15 metres from the water could not expand beyond a total end result of 1,000 square feet. Currently the limit is 13% of lot coverage for all buildings 60 metres from the water. For a 150 foot lake frontage that works out to 3837.6 square feet ( there are width limits and no closer to the lake )

    Cottage owners may well want to step up and be counted on this impactful topic.


    Vaughn Hibbits

    1751 North Muldrew Lake


  • May 31, 2022 7:37 PM | Anonymous

    In case you missed it, our 2022 Late Spring Newsletter from our MLCA President, Ted Alley is here:

    2022 Late Spring Newsletter.pdf

  • March 27, 2022 2:36 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    The Town of Gravenhurst is Hiring

    To view the Job Opportunities and Job Descriptions please visit www.gravenhurst.ca/jobs 

    If you are interested please email your resume to humanresources@gravenhurst.ca

    Summer Positions

    • Marina Gas Bar Attendant - 3 positions available (non-union position, 0-40 hrs per week) 
    • Waterfront Instructor/Lifeguard and Beach Patrol - (non-union positions, 0-35hrs per week)
    • Parks Crew - Student position (40 hrs/wk) 
    • Septic Re-Inspection Program Student - Student position (full time, 35hrs/wk)
    • Student Office Assistant - Fire and Emergency Services – Student position (full time, 35hrs/wk)   
    • Summer Reading Coordinator (Gravenhurst Public Library)  
    • Building/Bylaw and Planning Student - Student position (full time, 35hrs/wk)


    Full time Opportunities   

    • Facilities Maintenance Technician (unionized position, 40hrs/wk)   
    • Municipal Operator 2 - Public Works (unionized position, 40hrs/wk) 
    • Building/Bylaw Clerk (full time unionized contract position, 35hrs/wk)


  • March 27, 2022 2:34 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    In case you missed the email with the 2022 Spring Newsletter from the MLCA, come view it here.

    2022 Early Spring Newsletter.pdf

  • November 06, 2021 12:56 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    View MLCA's President's Fall Newsletter here for those that missed the email.

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software