Comments submitted to the Board Jul 12/22 (with no response yet)

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.


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software