Here follows a letter from Gary Faulkner owner of the Whitesands property. Gary is a P Eng. , has a Ph.D. in mathematics and has been a property owner in the area for more that 40 years.

return to park index

These 3 letters do much to explain what is generally seen as the failure of the LSC in dealing with it's mandate. All letters were hard copied to the minister.
Letter October 31, 2002  title  Requests for "Buffer Zones" and Northeast Catchacoma , and  deals with the historical.

Letter December 3rd, 2002  deals with  "the inaccurate information that has been provided .. by the Local Stakeholders’ Committee (LSC). Letter December 4th,  2002     Review of LSCís Recommendations Regarding NE Catchacoma - (continued):

Gary B. Faulkner
October 31, 2002

Dear Minister Ouellette         Re EBR # PB00E3003
Document  -  Exclusions #1 - Appendix  #2

Requests for "Buffer Zones" and Northeast Catchacoma


On page 22 of the KHSS Recommendation Report prepared for the Minister of Natural Resources by the LSC last November, and referring to a "buffer zone" at the northeast corner of Lake Catchacoma (see areas 1, 2 and 7 on Map #1), the LSC makes the comment:
" … Of the four submissions we received requesting this buffer zone,  … "

And in the preceding sentence the LSC states:

" … we suspect certain individuals will continue to oppose our recommendation … "

No wonder the LSC anticipates some opposition - pages 22, 23 and 24 provide the Minister, and others, with extremely inaccurate, incomplete and even false information concerning northeast Catchacoma; and, as a result, some property owners at the northeast corner of Catchacoma are being treated most unfairly.  Please consider the following:


Reasons for Requesting Buffer Zones:

On page 22 of the LSC’s November 2001 Recommendations the LSC presents three reasons it believes that buffer zones are requested.  Paraphrased slightly they are:

These are all correct, valid reasons; however, there is another reason.  Many persons have also requested buffer zones on their lakes, even though the proposed park is on the opposite side of the lake from their property, or even on a different lake, because they believe that -

This reason was directly stated, or implicit, in many submissions. In Cavendish and Harvey  the lakes are much more developed (more patented land on the shorelines, proportionately) than they are in Burleigh and Anstruther.  The reasons for any particular submission could have been any combination of these reasons, from any single reason to all four.

NB:   Please note that access to the existing KHPP, part of the "largest park in Ontario south of Algonquin Park", was advertised on the Parks Ontario website as being through the two marinas on Catchacoma during 2001.

Please see Map #1 Attached:

As we mentioned in Exclusions #1 and Appendix #1, the location of the KHSS boundary as proposed in the OLL Proposed Land Use Strategy of March 1999 would have caused about 477 private properties in Cavendish and Harvey to be enveloped or contiguous with Crown land that was to be re-designated from General Use to the PP or CR designation, or some combination thereof, subject to boundary adjustments as specified in the "Terms of Reference for the LSC.  These properties are located adjacent to areas 1 through 8 of the attached Map #1.

Prior to the Lands for Life and Ontario’s Living Legacy initiatives all of these properties were enveloped by General Use Crown land and their owners relied on access rights as assured by the DLUGs, and on being able to exercise Free Use Policy Privileges.  In addition to the DLUGs, the GLSLA Round Table confirmed these rights and privileges in Scenario One which they presented in February 1998.  The redesignation of these General Use Crown lands to a park or conservation reserve promised to confiscate many of these rights and privileges from property owners.

We shall refer to the shoreline from the north shore of Spafford’s Bay (from Cadge Creek) to the "Cut" from Catchacoma to McGinniss, as the northeast corner of Catchacoma (NE Catchacoma), and 47 of the 477 properties referred to above are located in this area.

NB:   This proposal included in the proposed park all of: the east shore of Mississagua, the south shore of Ratty’s River, the south-westerly and easterly shores of Gold and Cavendish Lakes,  the south-easterly and northerly shores of Beaver Lake, the north shore of McGinniss Lake, and all of the shoreline between the "Cut" to McGinniss and Cadge Creek on Lake Catchacoma.
That is,  all eight of the areas identified on the map were within the KHSS boundary as proposed in March 1999.

Submissions requesting buffer zones:

February 1998 to April 29, 1999:

Prior to March of 1999 the GLSLA Round Table presented six other scenarios for what is now referred to as the KHSS area.  These scenarios were also restrictive of property owners interests; but, generally, were less restrictive than the current OLL Provincial Park proposal, which was first presented in March 1999..

By March 1999 public input was solicited for three very different Lands for Life and OLL proposals.  The deadline for the last proposal was April 29, 1999.

A submission was made by the writer to Bob Gray of the GLSLA Round Table requesting a "General Use Buffer Zone" at  NE Catchacoma on April 29th, 1998.
A second submission by the writer, responding to the Consolidated Recommendations of the Round Tables of November 1998,  which was very  different from the proposal of April, was made to Minister John Snobelen on November 28, 1998. This submission also requested a General Use buffer zone for NE Catchacoma.
On April 29th, 1999 the owners of thirteen properties on NE Catchacoma were known to favour a buffer zone for the area, and four of them, who collectively owned 11 of these properties, wrote letters to Minister John Snobelen that day.  The fifth owner was unable to respond by the deadline because of a serious health problem in the family.  Most persons in Cavendish and Harvey were totally unaware of Lands for Life / OLL proceedings at that time.
Please note that by April 29th, 1999 at least six submissions had been made to the GLSLA Round Table and / or to Minister Snobelen requesting buffer zones at NE Catchacoma.  These submissions were written by four different persons / groups and responded to three different scenarios; therefore, they must be considered distinct.  All six submissions requested buffer zones for NE Catchacoma that were similar variations of Areas 1, 2 and 7 combined.  Copies of these submissions are available.

July 1999:

In July of 1999 the Cabinet Approved Ontario’s Living Legacy  Land Use Strategy was released to the public and it was accompanied by a new map showing a different boundary for the KHSS than the one proposed in March 1999 and, also, introducing Forest Reserves.

Area 1:Please see Map #1 Attached:

The bay at the northeast corner of Catchacoma is called Spafford’s Bay and about May of 1999, the cutting rights of the Bancroft / Minden Sustainable Forestry Licensee were extended into  Area 1 to the north of Spafford’s Bay.  This exclusion relative to the proposed KHSS boundary of March 1999 only became known to the public after the OLL  Approved Land Use Strategy (LUS) was released in July 1999.  The reason for this exclusion only became known to the writer in late October 1999 via a letter from MNR Senior Program Coordinator, Ken Cain, dated October 28, 1999.   Copies available on request.

NB:   This exclusion provided the owners of three private properties on Spafford’s Bay  with a General Use buffer zone.

NB:   The  boundary proposed for the KHSS in July 1999 did not take the six submissions described above requesting a buffer zone for NE Catchacoma into account.  It was astonishing to learn that the "cutting rights" of the forestry industry were extended into Area 1, but the buffer zones in Areas 2 and 7 had not been granted.  We are adjacent to Area 2 a very short distance away from Area 1. Obviously, the impact of granting access to a small number of properties on NE Catchacoma would be negligible relative to the forestry operations.   The manager of the forestry company involved has told me that a road to Area 1 will have to be built when the area is harvested.

However, the boundary adjustments, as referred to in the July LUS as part of the Local Stakeholders’ Committees’ (LSC) mandate suggested that this problem could be solved by reasonable negotiations with the LSC once it was appointed.  As clearly specified, the LSC was to take the requirements of adjacent property owners into account when making its recommendations.

The LUS of July 1999 is not very clear on policies regarding private property access rights and privileges within the PP or CR designations and the public required a clarification of these policies from the LSC as soon as it was appointed.

August 2000 to February 28, 2001:

The LSC was appointed by August 2000 and started meeting with the public in September 2000.

Extremely important point:

The mandate of the KHSS LSC made it clear that only three possibilities were provided to affected property owners trying to negotiate with the LSC -

i) they could recommend that a Conservation Reserve designation be put into effect adjacent to their private property,
ii) they could recommend that a Provincial Park designation be put into effect adjacent to their private property, or
iii) they could recommend that a boundary adjustment, or exclusion, be put into effect adjacent to their private property which would remain a "buffer zone" of General Use Crown land adjacent to their private property.
No other possibilities were provided for, including new land use designations, etc.

It follows that any property owner, or association, or municipal council that rejected both i) and ii) has automatically opted for iii).  There were (are currently) no other options. Virtually all private property owners in  the KHSS area, the associations representing them and both municipal councils have rejected I) and ii); and therefore, have opted for iii).

It also follows that any property owner, or association, or council (anywhere in the KHSS area) that recommends a buffer zone between all KHSS area private properties and / or the lakes and Crown land having the PP or the CR designation is also specifically recommending a buffer zone between private properties and / or the lake at NE Catchacoma.

The LSC started meeting with the public in September 2000.  The first meeting in Cavendish Township was held on September 23rd, 2000.  At that meeting the writer made both Nancy Wilson and Sissy Tanner aware of the six submissions regarding buffer zones at NE Catchacoma that had been made previously, and was assured that the LSC had access to all prior submissions.

On October 14th, 2000 the writer also sent Sissy Tanner a copy of our April 29th, 1999 submission to John Snobelen for consideration by the LSC, as we promised to do in our conversation regarding past submissions on September 23rd, 2000.  Copy available by request.

At the same meeting, the writer also requested Nancy Wilson and Sissy Tanner for a clarification of policies regarding access rights to private properties in CRs and PPs, as well as clarifications of other terms.  Regarding property access roads, both persons claimed not to know the answer.

Al Ross, President of the 325 member Cavendish Community Ratepayers’ Association Inc. (CCRAI),  made a written and oral presentation at the September 23rd, 2000 meeting in which he very clearly requested a "buffer zone" between private property and the KHSS to allow for private property development.  Copies are available by request.

By August of 2000 the LSC had available the so-called  Meteek Report prepared for the MNR by consultant Jack van der Meer.  In Sections 7.7.1 and 7.7.2 on page 65 of this report the author makes it very clear that there should be a spatial separation  (read buffer zones) between CRs or PPs and private property for the mutual benefit of property owners and park (or CR) management.

NB:  By September 23rd, 2000, at the latest, the LSC was aware of, or should have been aware of, at least eight submissions advocating buffer zones between the KHSS and private property, including private property on NE Catchacoma. Six of them referred to NE Catchacoma specifically.

NB:   By February 28th, 2001 at least three more submissions requesting exclusions, or buffer zones, were sent to the LSC.  One was the very comprehensive NORKLA  (Meridew-Lashmar) report which, on pages 48 and 49, requests buffer zones between all private property and the KHSS.  This document received support from the Council for Galway-Cavendish and Harvey as well as the CCRAI.  The other two submissions came from persons on NE Catchacoma, about twenty persons in all, and they strongly advocated buffer zones to protect access rights and Free Use Policy Privileges.  Copies available by request.
NB:   It is important to note that a great many persons were not very aware of OLL developments by February 28th, 2001.  One very important submission was made to the LSC and others by Lloyd Darlington, President of the Beaver/Cavendish/Bottle/McGinniss Lakes Cottage Owners’ Association Inc., June 25th, 2001.  We have reason to believe that this submission may not have been brought to the attention of the Minister, and others.  We are sending a copy of this submission by FAX, separately, as  Schedule #1 to this Appendix.  Clearly, this letter from an organization representing 95% of its possible membership makes many important points.  Amongst them, buffer zones are recommended, as is a road to the north of Lake Catchacoma.

By August 14th, 2001  at least twelve submissions had been made requesting General Use buffer zones between private property and restrictive designations of Crown land.  All twelve were applicable to NE Catchacoma and eight of them mentioned NE Catchacoma specifically.

LSC’s Draft Recommendations, August 14, 2001:

Areas 3 and 5:Please see Map #1 Attached:

When the Draft recommendations were released seven weeks late on August 14, 2001 it was enormously disappointing to discover that Area 3 and Area 5 were recommended exclusions (buffer zones), but Areas 2, 7, 4, 8 and 6 were not.  The reasons for requesting buffer zones were essentially identical in all seven of these areas.

NB:   The Draft Recommendations had the effect of removing all of the shoreline on Lakes Mississagua, Cavendish, Beaver, most of the shoreline on McGinniss, and the entire western shore of Gold Lake from the KHSS.  We say most of the shoreline on McGinniss because it was not clear from the maps the LSC released in August 2001 that area 3a was a recommended exclusion.

These recommendations had the effect of reducing political support for, or neutralizing, those property owners who did not have buffer zones recommended.  These Draft Recommendations were extremely unfair to the property owners on the eastern shores of Gold and Catchacoma Lakes who were still recommended to be enveloped by park lands.  The owners of properties in these areas required buffer zones for precisely the same reasons they were required and recommended in areas 3 and 5.

August 14th to October 31st, 2001:

Between August 14th and October 31st , 2001 at least another 25 submissions requesting buffer zones between private properties and the KHSS were sent to the LSC and / or MPPs who forwarded them to the LSC and / or the Minister of Natural resources.  Of these 25 submissions, at least 8 specifically mentioned buffer zones at NE Catchacoma.  At least 14 of these 25 submissions came from groups, associations and councils representing, literally, hundreds  of local property owners.

Area 4:Please see Map #1 Attached:

At the August 25th , 2001 meeting of the LSC in Apsely, Margaret Fryer requested the buffer zone identified as Area 4 on Map #1.  This request was also supported be the CCRAI and by the Council for G-C&H.

Area 6:Please see Map #1 Attached:

Rob Holroyd requested this buffer zone in an email to the LSC dated September 27th, 2001.  He also requested buffer zones around the other lakes, specifically including Catchacoma.  He wished to extend a road to his cottage - it is currently only four properties away from his cottage.  Of course this request was also supported by CCRAI and Council for G-C&H.

His reasons for requesting the buffer zone were identical to these reasons for which Area 5 was recommended in August 2001.

NB:   By October 31st, 2001, in total, at least 37 submissions had been sent to the LSC and / or MPPs requesting buffer zones between private properties and or the lakes in the KHSS area, and of these submissions 16 specifically referenced NE Catchacoma.

NB:   During September 2001 it became known that 26 pages of policy clarifications and definitions regarding Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves had been withheld from the public since September 26th, 2000.  These pages contained sixty-one clarifications in total and greatly changed the public’s understanding of the consequences of being surrounded by, or adjacent to, a PP or CR.  For example, private property access roads and trails which were permitted in CRs and PPs,in February 1998, according to the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Area Round Table, were no longer permitted.  Nor were utility corridors or cross-country travel to access, say, OFSC Trails.  How did this happen? These are radical changes for property owners to contemplate.

October 31st, 2001 to August 5th, 2002:

November 6th, 2001:

This was a particularly significant day for KHSS events.  On this date the LSC lost the support of the North Kawartha Council for its Draft Recommendations of August 2001, despite the fact that the Reeve and Deputy Reeve of North Kawartha are both members of the LSC.  Has the Minister of Natural Resources been formally notified of this extraordinary event as provided for in the rescinding motions of the North Kawartha Council?

During this period to August 5th, 2002 at least another  18 submissions have been made requesting buffer zones between private properties and the KHSS populated lakes and the KHSS.  Of these, 2 specifically referenced NE Catchacoma.

Many of these submissions came from the presidents of cottagers’ associations who, this year, had some opportunity to discuss the KHSS issues with their memberships.  The support for buffer zones has been overwhelming and virtually unanimous, except for the Catchacoma Cottagers’ Association.

Since August 5th, 2002 many additional requests for buffer zones have been requested, including many that reference NE Catchacoma specifically.

Several of these requests have been made by the Stakeholders’ Groups of the Kawartha Highlands (SGKH), which represents our views in this regard, along with the Council for Galway-Cavendish and Harvey led by Reeve Tom Flynn.

Recommendations of the LSC, November 2001:

Recently, we have received the KHSS Recommendations Report - November 2001, and the following new information regarding buffer zones was provided.

Re Area 4:Please see Map #1 Attached:

This buffer zone is recommended by the LSC as requested.

Re Area 6:Please see Map #1 Attached:

This buffer zone request does not even seem to be acknowledged by the LSC.  Given the obvious similarities between the reasons for this buffer zone and Area 5 this is very difficult to understand.  Was this buffer zone opposed by anyone?  It seems so reasonable.

Re Area 3a:Please see Map #1 Attached:

The LSC has confirmed that it intended this exclusion to be part of Area 3 which was recommended in August 2001 and this provides the eight property owners between the "Cut" and Bottle Creek with a (small) buffer zone.  This still leaves 36 properties between Bottle Creek and Spafford’s Bay with no buffer zone.

Re Areas 2, 7 and 8:Please see Map #1 Attached:

The LSC has not recommended these buffer zones.  Of the 36 properties in adjacent to 2 and 7, there are 11 that may not be able to obtain required utility connections.  This is extremely serious and unfair.

Important note to recipient:

According to our log we sent you an email with a cover letter addressed to MPPs Ouellette, Stewart and Hodgson on August 12, 2002 and a 22-page attachment summarizing about 90 submissions to the KHSS process that we have reviewed.  They have been used to produce this Appendix to our Exclusion #1 Submission.  We asked at the time we sent the summary that the summary and each of the submissions referenced be registered under the EBR No. PB00E3003.  Could you please confirm receipt of that email and that the references were related to PB00E3003.  I would suppose that a single reference relating the summary to PB00E3003 would be sufficient.  Thank you very much.

The same email was copied to the LSC on August 21st, 2002.  Would you please acknowledge. Thank you.

We very much appreciate your consideration of this important information.

Gary Faulkner

c.c. LSC   c/o Nancy Wilson
 Mr. Gary Stewart   MPP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
 Hon. Chris Hodgson Minister of Municipal Affairs
Gary B. Faulkner
December 3rd, 2002

Dear Minister Ouellette,

Further to our comments of yesterday we wish to continue to correct the inaccurate information that has been provided to you by the Local Stakeholders’ Committee (LSC) in its recommendations to you of November 2001.  We are particularly concerned about inaccurate information presented on pages 22 through 24 of the recommendations which deal with the northeast corner of Lake Catchacoma.

Buffer Zones:

Buffer zones are referenced on the top right corner of page 22 of the subject recommendations.  We agree with all of the reasons stated for buffer zones that are given, which may be summarized by stating that the property owners requesting buffer zones (or exclusions, or boundary adjustments) wish to retain:

that motivated their purchase of their properties in the first place.  All of these attributes are being retained by property owners who are not immediately adjacent to Crown lands  being redesignated to the Provincial Park land use designation.  Let’s be fair.

In addition we wish to draw your attention to the following passages written by consultant Jack van der Meer who provided the LSC with background information regarding the KHSS in the so-called "Meteek Report".  On page 65 of van der Meer’s report he writes:

"7.7.1 Impact of Regulation on Adjacent Land Owners

While the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy has specified that private properties on the numerous lakes and isolated parcels are not included in the protected area, many properties will abut the boundaries or will be contained totally within them.   A concern has been expressed that restrictions on the protected area will have an impact on the adjacent or contained private land."

"7.7.2 Impact of Adjacent Private Land on the Protected Area

Conversely, it can be argued that the presence of highly developed cottage lakes immediately adjacent to the protected area will make it difficult to manage the type of activities that occur in the area.  Adjacent land owners have experienced little restriction in the way they have used the adjacent Crown Land, and past activities might not be considered appropriate in a Provincial Park or a Conservation Reserve.  The control of access and the nature of private activities within the boundaries of  the protected area may become an issue."

Do these passages not suggest that significant spatial separation between private property and a provincial park is an excellent idea?  As I am sure you know, Jack van der Meer had many years experience with the MNR and, doubtless, he was retained as a consultant to advise the LSC because of his knowledge and expertise.

Fairness and Equitable Treatment:

When it was first proposed to designate major portions of the KHSS to be a provincial park in March 1999, the proposed park boundary abutted approximately 477 mainland waterfront properties in Cavendish and Harvey Townships.  Now, after the LSC’s Draft Recommendations of August 2001 and the Recommendations of November 2001, it is proposed that the park boundary abut approximately 51 mainland waterfront properties in Cavendish and Harvey.  We contend that it should abut no private properties.  We all require the exclusions recommended for 426 property owners.

The LSC has in a very arbitrary fashion recommended exclusions for some property owners and not for others.  The attached map summarizes the situation to date.

There are approximately 15 properties at the southeast corner of Gold Lake, some of which have road access, that  have not received the benefit of an exclusion recommendation.  There are another 36 on the easterly shores of  Lake Catchacoma.

We summarized the interpretation of the attached map in our letter to you dated October 31st, 2002, so we will not repeat it here, but we are re-attaching it for ease of reference.

We appreciate your consideration of this information and would be pleased to discuss it with you.

Gary Faulkner

Attachments: Rob Holroyd submission.
  Exclusion Map #1
  Exclusions #1 letter to Hon. Jerry Ouellette, Oct. 31, 2002

December 4th,  2002

Dear Minister Ouellette,

Review of LSC’s Recommendations Regarding NE Catchacoma - (continued):

As we have stated in other recent memos the information on pages 22, 23 and 24 of the LSC’s Recommendation to you of November 2001 is not accurate, and it does not reflect the wishes of the majority of persons owning property on the northeast shore of Catchacoma.


On page 22 the LSC claims that  it has only received four submissions advocating a "buffer zone" on northeast Catchacoma.  How does it explain the fact that I have copies of about 40 submissions advocating buffer zones, and about 16 of them specifically refer to NE Catchacoma?  Many of these submissions request buffer zones between all private properties and the KHSS and, of course, these references  include NE Catchacoma?  Please see the companion attachment which details when these submissions were made, as well as the details concerning the "exclusion map" that I sent you yesterday.

I sent you a summary of about 90 submissions that have been made to you and / or the LSC and / or your predecessor Mr. Snobelen regarding KHSS matters on August 12, 2002.  It was brought to my attention by Barry Hendry, a reporter with the Bancroft Times, that your office claimed not to have received that summary.  Subsequently, I contacted Doug Bulloch of your office and he confirmed the message that I received from Mr. Hendry.  Mr. Bulloch also claimed that  another submission from me (about 47 pages in a binder) that was hand delivered to you and Chris Hodgson, in the House by Gary Stewart, was not available

Subsequently Gary Stewart confirmed to me in writing  that he had delivered the binder to you and Chris Hodgson in the House, and on November 15, 2002 I re-emailed the summary of 90 submissions to your office.  Mr. Bulloch has now confirmed to me that he has both submissions and that they have been, or will be, delivered to you personally.

I can understand how in a large organization such as you are responsible for, the MNR, that information may be temporarily misplaced.  However, regarding the KHSS issues, I cannot understand how about  90% of the information in favour of buffer zones on NE Catchacoma is missing.

Do you have any hope of obtaining the missing submissions or should we try to arrange that they be resubmitted?

 Bias of the LSC Regarding NE Catchacoma:

The selection of seven letters, six of which are presented anonymously, that the LSC has provided to you on pages 23 and 24 is preposterous.  There is not a single quotation from a person in favour of buffer zones, they are all anti-buffer zone and "pro-park- to- the- back- door".

The majority of property owners on the northeast shore of Catchacoma are no different than the vast majority of property owners elsewhere in the KHSS and the Councils and Associations, etc. representing them - they do not wish their private properties to be immediately adjacent to a provincial park or a conservation reserve!    The LSC appears to be doing everything in its power to obscure this fact, particularly on the northeast shore of Catchacoma.  (I will provide you with very solid evidence of this statement shortly.)  Not everyone wants a road - but  most do not want a park adjacent to their property.   In other words, most want a buffer zone.

Please note that the vast majority of  local property owners are not totally opposed to the park concept - they just don’t want it adjacent to their properties.  By not recognizing this simple fact the LSC has greatly compromised the faith of local property owners, the true local stakeholders, in KHSS processes.

A very small compromise granting the exclusions or buffer zones requested by property owners would probably transform many, if not most, currently  dissenting  property owners into supporters of the park concept.  Why doesn’t the LSC realize this obvious fact?

I have no objection to the views expressed by the six anonymous letter writers.  For me, it’s easy to tell who some of them are and they are certainly entitled to their opinions.  However it is most unfair of the LSC to have edited out other points of view on this important issue.

The letter from Wendy Lyttle is a different matter and we shall deal with it as a separate issue.  It contains false information and should not have been presented to you as the ratified opinion of the Catchacoma Cottagers’ Association or, more particularly, as the opinion of the majority of property owners on northeast Catchacoma whose properties, or accesses to their properties, are proposed to be made adjacent to a park.

Expectations Regarding Property Access:

Section 3 of the 47 page binder from me that Gary Stewart delivered to you presented twenty-five reasons why property owners are justified in expecting to be able to develop access roads across General Use Crown land to their properties.   Most respectfully, I request that you review these reasons.  (Additional copies of this somewhat lengthy document  are available on request) These reasons included:

On the other hand, where does one find information widely distributed to the public (such as the DLUGs) that states roads are not permitted on General Use Crown land?

The point is that persons who purchased properties surrounded by General Use Crown land have had every reason to believe that in all likelihood access roads could, and would, be developed to their properties over time as desired and / or required.  In the KHSS area this process is about  90% complete.  It is not fair to discriminate against the remaining 10%.

Those persons who may enjoy, while they are young and healthy, the quaintness of a water access property have had no reason to believe that, over time, their neighbours would not develop access roads to their private properties as permitted by the DLUGs, perhaps subject to some reasonable environmental constraints.  There is nothing more fragile about the NE corner of Catchacoma than other parts of the KHSS where roads have been built.

The sentence in the lower right hand corner of page 22:

" … The other three submissions were from property owners, who purchased these properties knowing the type of access that was available. …"

is reminiscent of the callous quotation attributed to Sissy Tanner in the attached article from the Peterborough Examiner.  As you are aware there are about seventy persons on Anstruther Lake who are threatened with having no satisfactory access to their properties because of proposed changes they attribute to the KHSS process and the conversion of a marina to a condominium.  Ms. Tanner was apparently responding to their very serious concerns - but not very sympathetically.

As pointed out above property owners, until very recently, have had no reason to believe that access to their properties, including utility corridors, was likely to be suddenly cut off for no good reason.  This situation is extremely unfair.

Once again we thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information or clarification regarding these points.

Gary B. Faulkner
705 657-8432

Other attachments: Exclusions #1 - Appendix #2
   Peterborough Examiner Article quoting Sissy Tanner.