In the past, the Six Mile Lake Cottagers Association (CA) has been reluctant to comment on inaccuracies published by the Six Mile Lake Ratepayers Alliance (RA) so as not to fuel the fires of controversy and not to exacerbate division within our community. However, on April 28, 2023, the RA published a newsletter to their members which contains significant inaccuracies that must be corrected.

Please read the following embedded rebuttals in red italic from the CA to the recent RA message, shown in gray.

RA: OPA Application Update. (Excerpt from SMLRA newsletter)

(Specific to lands within the Six Mile Lake Waterfront Community)

Since 2019 the SMLRA have been working with the SMLCA to provide joint recommendations based on the survey results, in particular, making some minor changes to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw policies that impact the redevelopment of existing shoreline lots.

CA: The change recommended in the OPA by the RA is definitely not minor because it would open the door to similar changes in the Zoning By-law which would result in much larger cottages built on Six Mile Lake, to the detriment of the environment and character of the lake. While members of the RA and CA Boards have met on several occasions since 2019, the RA has refused to compromise and has advanced only its own proposal that the Gross Floor Area (GFA) restriction in the Zoning Bylaw be eliminated.

RA: We have asked the SMLCA to provide a list of their recommendations and suggested revisions and they have not delivered any suggested policy changes to implement the survey results.  

CA: This is absolutely not true! The CA has presented several alternatives to the RA plan and we have reached out to work together multiple times – nine times at the last count – to negotiate a way forward and put an end to the polarization on the lake.

RA: In the last two months we tried once again to work with the SMLCA.

CA: This renewed attempt to work together was originally initiated by the CA which urged Councillor Kristian Graziano to mediate between the two organizations.

RA: A committee made up of Kristian Graziano (local councillor), Harold Toiviainen (SMLCA), and Peter Olar (SMLRA) and our professional planner tried to reach an agreement.

The goal of this meeting was to move forward with our directive to simplify the Official Plan policies, while maintaining what is important to the lake community.

CA: When Kristian Graziano, Harold Toiviainen, and Peter Olar met with the RA planner on February 17th., the whole meeting turned out to be for the RA planner to provide his proposal on how they intended to change the Six Mile Lake Community Plan. Their intention with the OPA was the removal of all GFA caps from the OP. Harold was advised by Kristian to consult his board of directors and provide a response.

Subsequently, professional advice obtained by the CA reiterated that removing the size caps in the official plan did not serve the lake community because it weakened the position of using GFA to control oversized cottages. We informed the RA that we did not condone removal of the caps but were open to discussing measures of relaxation in the Zoning By-law.

The RA planner withdrew his participation in further discussions and proceeded with their OPA.

RA: Kristian Graziano asked the SMLCA to provide their recommendations to the committee and this was not provided.

CA: This is again categorically false! Kristian did in fact ask both parties to come prepared to discuss GFA numbers in a meeting held on April 28^th. The RA declined to offer any alternative suggestion for GFA caps, while the CA came prepared with numbers to discuss as a possible solution. For a video of this meeting go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC_hlLYB2ys&t=15s

RA: Our planner has a professional obligation to work with the entire community and ensure any proposed changes to existing policies are in the interest of those who are directly impacted, while ensuring these changes follow the overall direction of the District of Muskoka and Provincial policies.

CA: The RA planner has never consulted with the entire community. In fact, he has never surveyed the lake’s landowners to measure support for their proposed plan. At their townhall meeting, opportunities for discussion were limited, (one question each, no follow up questions, and no vote to assess support for the proposal). It is clear that the RA’s immovable position is to abolish GFA limits, whether the majority of the lake supports that or not.

RA: As the SMLCA did not provide any reasonable suggestions, we have no choice but to proceed with our Official Plan Amendment application that will kick-start this process with the Township and eventually lead to detailed changes to the Zoning By-law. The SMLRA, SMLCA and all other residents of Six Mile Lake will have an opportunity to speak to any of our proposed changes and recommendations as we go through this official process.

The CA intends to advance our position on the implications of the RA proposed changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. We are very concerned that this OPA is just a step in the process of removing GFA building restrictions altogether. We believe their next step will be a Zoning By-law amendment to remove GFA, building width restrictions, and lot coverage shoreline restrictions.