Don't sell out Muskoka - election fever?

Port Carling's failed development

With Municipal elections looming, I've been thinking about the platforms upon which politicians must remain silent on: residents annoyed by tourists, abuses of land and lake, NIMBY projects, or the failed project in Port Carling.

Blasted it and ran out of $$$

All over Ontario we elect town councillors who then make town planning decisions based on long-term plans for an area. It takes into account local and regional concerns, i.e., environmental issues, the enjoyment of a particular area, location of businesses that respect residents and prevent, or resolve conflicts between land use.


If a potential developer wants to put in condos, or high density land use in an area of low density residences, for example, the potential business developer first approaches the town council to seek a ruling or variance on original town plans. Once the councillors choose not to allow a developer in, since it often violates the spirit of their town plan, the developer may go to the OMB to protest the decision. This is what happened in Muskoka. The OMB often hears from local cottagers, or developers, who want to defy the town plan and by-laws (July 18, and in Feb.: Red Leaves Development, rezoning issues (2007).

It was with great trepidation that I read about the hearing regarding Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for Bala Woodlands Resort. I can truly imagine the impact of a resort on such a small lake. It is criminal that most OMB hearings (75% according to Wikipedia) rule in favour of developers, in spite of elected planning town councils who have voted otherwise. 


Perhaps I fear so much because I have seen the impact of heavy tourist populations on our lake. My enjoyment, my life in cottage country, is diminished by those who do not have an understanding of such a life. Surely the Township of Muskoka Lakes By-laws would apply in such situations?

garbage from our shoreline

It states, “Whereas the inhabitants of the Township should have an environment free from unusual, unnecessary or excessive noise which may degrade the quality and tranquility of their life or cause nuisance, in the public interest;" and goes on to describe the bylaw rules. The problem is that the Township is hard-pressed to find the resources to protect residents. 

We have had tourists visiting (many who simply rent and care little for those of us who live here) who like to set off firecrackers and fireworks every night that they visit. Two weeks of nightly fireworks has a large impact, not only on us, but on our pets and our wildlife. We moved 400 km to find the peace that comes with a Muskoka evening


We have entertained fishermen (yes – ‘men’) who believe that fishing spittin’ distance off of our dock, the lake is theirs to pollute and exploit, with no regard for the rest of us. 

watch out for the rock!

Asian canoeists, unfamiliar with paddling a canoe, ended up on our shore one afternoon. They had no idea how to paddle, yet had been able to rent a canoe and, out in a brisk wind with which I would not have wrestled, managed not to master the basics of canoeing. So much for the new boating regulations. Rudderless, toothless and pointless.

using the lakeshore for a shooting range

We have had people burn bonfires that, on a hot, still day, drift across the lake, along with their loud music and party atmosphere. It spoils the solitude those of us require for our emotional well-being. We do not want to have to close our windows in order to keep out the noise or smell of the smoke. 


The two-stroke motors continue to pollute our air and our lake. They dump 25 to 40 percent of their fuel in the lake. The summer brings those noisy Personal Water Craft (PWC) and the bored young folk who like to go around and around our lake ad nauseum. I recall sitting on the shore one day, quietly sipping my coffee and trying to deal with a death in our family. The noise and smell of the machines was awful.


I hope the politicians make the right decisions, based on our needs as residents. They must listen to all stakeholders, but they cannot sell out residents for the almighty tourist dollar. I sit and weep and hope that they do so. Our grandchildren have the right to enjoy this land as much as we have done. Please do not sell out Muskoka.


Ontario Municipal Board Resources
1. OMB hearing for Bala Resort. Bracebridge Examiner. 2007
2. Doug Bryden's remarks regarding the hearings. Township of Muskoka Lakes Ratepayers Association.
3. OMB case #PL050714 Download the ruling from the TMLRA.
4. OMB  Members  Biographies
5. Selling  Muskoka by the Gallon. By Michael Enright

Ontario Municipal Board

The advice for aspiring writers is to write everyday. I find an idea and I usually pop the topic into a file. Much to my surprise, a topic of concern to us in Muskoka has been recognized in Toronto. Let me explain our situation here first!

All over Ontario we elect councillors who then make town planning decisions based on long-term plans for an area. It takes into account local and regional concerns, i.e., environmental issues, the enjoyment of a particular area, location of businesses that respect residents and prevent, or resolve conflicts between land use.

If a potential developer wants to put in condos, or high density land use in an area of low density residences, for example, the potential business developer first approaches the town council to seek a ruling or variance on original town plans. Once the councillors choose not to allow a developer in, since it often violates the spirit of their town plan, the developer may go to the OMB to protest the decision. This is what happened in Muskoka. The OMB often hears from local cottagers, or developers, who want to defy the town plan (July 18, Feb.: Red Leaves Development, rezoning issues.

The environment is of great concern here in the cottage country in Muskoka. It is a fragile environment and even more fragile economy (with tourism down by 30%). The Muskoka Wharf project, overdone, and blocking all views of the natural harbour, clutters a beautiful tourist attraction. It draws those with much cents, and little sense of the environment. I understand that tourism is important to our economy, but there needs to be a better use of this land. Many of the cottagers around us have been renting out their properties in high season. Unfortunately, it is to people who neither respect the environment or their neighbours. This seems to be the way of Muskoka.

Taboo is an expensive resort in the area. We popped in for a glass of wine and cup of coffee this summer and we had to fork out $25. I kid you not. Recently, Taboo having been turned down by the Councillors, fought it. As with many lakes, they are saturated and cannot support any more boats, cottagers, or citiots, and this plan does not fit in with town management. As always, the business owners went to the OMB to file an appeal and get new decision. Despite the fact that the Councillors said NO, it seems that the OMB, in its infinite wisdom, can over rule those who live, love, and work in this area. It is criminal that most OMB hearings (75 % according to Wikipedia) work in favour of developers, despite a planning council that determines the best development for an area in question.

Imagine my surprise when Global TV News featured a stree in Toronto, called OMB Folly! It seems that these North York councillors are well past any progress is keeping control of their city and the OMB fat cats, paid hundreds of dollars a day to basically overrule the town council, have been overturning local decisions. They do not understand land use, despite many of the council members having experience in land development and town planning.

The OMB has a long history of angering locals. Even the Toronto Mayor has weighed in on this issue. In a Toronto Star article it overruled a decision to keep out a big box WalMart. I laud North York, but hope that someone investigates this Board. There seems to be something wrong when appointed officers over rule fairly elected local officials.