A/01/2007/THE – Skultety
First of all, I’d like to say that we will refer to the waterbody that this property fronts on as “Jessop Lake”, although many locals refer to it as Jingo Lake, that is actually the name of the road, not the official name of the lake.
We have some concerns about this application. First, we note that Jessop Lake is Over Threshold, as shown by the District of Muskoka fact sheet, and of course, adequate setbacks are an important part of protecting OT lakes, as well as enhanced septic systems and so forth.
Second, Jessop Lake is subject to significant fluctuations in water levels, depending on what the beavers are doing in any given year at the sole outlet creek. This property appears to be bookended by wetlands on either side, but it is unclear whether this is the situation during years of high water levels or low water levels.
Third, we note that there is no adequate access to this property. The proposal to allow access via the public access point at the end of Mineral Springs Road makes us rather nervous. While we doubt that this will become another Norway Point, there have been other, smaller, conflicts in the past. We suspect there may be strong objections by area back-lot residents who use that to access the lake and suddenly find a cottager has taken all or part of that over.
We also note an apparent error in regards to the proposed water access. The Public Works Department is not empowered to authorize use of the road allowance for the access – the Official Plan requires that such permission must be specifically approved by Council.
We only received notice of this application in the mail on Friday. We visited the Planning Department yesterday morning, but were unable to arrange a meeting or to secure a copy of the RiverStone report in time for today’s Committee Meeting. We therefore ask that this matter be deferred to provide us with the time to properly evaluate this proposal.
We would suggest that this time would also be an opportunity for the Town to discuss the possibility of purchasing this property from the owner. As it backs onto two existing road allowances, it would be an excellent site for the creation of a small parkette if the Town chose to pony up some of that “payment in lieu of parkland” money. The owner could then use the funds to purchase a more suitable building site for their new cottage. It could be a win-win situation and the LWRA certainly supports enhanced access to waterfront for back-lot owners.