I am commenting as a…

I am commenting as a property owner, neighbour and community member on Winnetka Lake Road, regarding ERO applications #025-0351, #025-0350, and #025-0349

I grew up during summers decades ago on Engineer and Winnetka Lakes, when four separate families were shareholders the Winnetka Lake Corporation (“the co-op”). With frontage on both lakes, and comprising a good percentage of the land and overall number of cottages on the road we all shared, the co-op was a major fixture of our small community. That said, there was very little talk of which land and cottages were or weren’t part of the co-op. The shareholder families, I believe, leased the parcels of the corporation’s land where their cottages stood, and the remaining corporation land looked indistinguishable from the Crown land it bordered on – our understanding was that one of the intentions of holding the additional land was to prevent further development (this may even be in the by-laws of the corporation). Our family cottage was a short walk down the road or a short paddle or swim from the cottages of those families, and there was a rich and vibrant sense of community, with many activities, both planned and informal, shared by all our families, from children playing and swimming and exploring the two adjoining lakes together, to adults playing cards and picking blueberries together and helping each other with renovation projects, to multi-age parties and holiday celebrations. The co-op land north of the road was the scene of two tree forts, one built by the girls and one by the boys of nearly all the families – and no one spoke of who the land belonged to. And we were all proud of the water being so much clearer than other lakes in the area, and clean enough that we all drank it without filtration or treatment, and the fact that we had no leeches like in Lake of the Woods. The idyllic nature of the community felt threatened when new development was proposed (I believe in late 1970s or early 1980s) for cottages to be built on the west shore of Engineer Lake and south shore of Winnetka Lake. I recall the parents of all the families being unanimous and vehement in their opposition to this development plan, worried about the sensitive nature of the ecosystem of the two small lakes and how the increase of powerboat traffic, septic systems and clearing of forest would affect both the land and water ecosystems.

That opposed development was approved and proceeded. And since that time, the children my siblings and I played with have grown up and we have all brought our own children to this beautiful place we love so well. Thus, the pressure of septic systems on the land and water, vehicle traffic on the road, powerboat traffic on the lake, firewood cutting in the forest and so on have only increased further.

The area of the two small lakes is a unique and sensitive ecosystem, including wetlands at the south-west of Engineer and just to the north of Winnetka Lake, transitional forest surrounding both bodies of water, as well as open meadow with multiple berry and other low bush species. The once-clear water is noticeably less so, showing signs of dissolved organic compounds, presumably from human activity, and everyone filters or treats the water before drinking it, or brings in potable water from elsewhere. Fish habitat is at risk – beaches have been built dumping loads of sand into the water, and just in the last few years, invasive rusty crayfish have appeared in the water, and invasive leeches are sometimes seen, likely a result of powerboats being moved between our two bounded lakes and other lakes in the wider Kenora area for fishing and so on. Shoreline erosion from increased powerboat traffic has visibly reduced the tree population at the shoreline especially on the east shore of Engineer Lake in the last 8-10 years. Beavers make their homes in two or three spots, Great Blue Heron are sometimes seen, as well as a wide variety of other bird, mammal and reptile life. Lady’s Slipper orchids, a protected species in Ontario, are seen in select areas of the forest, and water lilies grow in shallower parts of the lakes. A wildfire narrowly missed destroying all the cottages on our road in 1988 – with conditions today, that risk is much increased, especially with greater human presence.

While the application refers to seasonal recreational use, the applicant plows
the road and regularly uses their cabin throughout the winter, creating year-round rather than seasonal wear and tear on the road and the area, and has been well known to cut large amounts of firewood in recent years for winter heat, putting further pressure on the surrounding forest.

While the applications for severance are framed as a simple portioning out of commonly held land, on closer examination there is clearly more to it than that. The three severance applications are being made on behalf of members of one extended family – members of one of the original shareholding families - who now between them own 75% of the co-op (I believe), while one other original family owns the remaining 25%. The applications claim there are no plans for development on the severed lots, however, plans to build more cabins for family members on some of the severed lots have been openly talked of, and a plan to build a road further into the two proposed lots at end of the existing road towards the small bay at the south-east of Winnetka Lake (locally known as “the back bay” - shallow and sensitive, with water lilies and a beaver lodge). Very sadly, the description of such plans has led to considerable social division within the once tight-knit community. I am concerned the applications do not accurately represent the applicant’s intentions, leaving a risk that the applications might be granted on the basis of misleading or partially concealed information. I believe any such application process should be conducted with full and transparent integrity.

I understand the intentions of these plans, I think – of course when we love a beautiful natural place so much, we want to bring those we love there and establish ways for them to enjoy it over time. However, with the environmental and land use pressures described above having already increased in recent years, the advent of new cabins or other development would increase those pressures to a point that would lead to serious degradation of the natural and recreational integrity of the area. Being in unorganized territory, there would be no oversight of building and development on the severed lots. The proposed new lots are also large enough, should the severance applications be granted, to further subdivide and sell on the open market, increasing those pressures and risk of degradation even further.

Further concerns are the risks of loss of access to what have been non-leased portions of the co-op land which have important significance and historical use patterns within the community. There is a decades-old system of walking trails, much beloved and maintained by the community. While the entrances to and important sections of these trails are in the portions of land proposed to be severed (the trails go right past the ruins of the above-mentioned tree forts, in fact), until the application, with this being unleased corporation land, there has always been a common understanding that all with cottages on the road are welcome on the trails. The proposed severance would almost certainly end this traditional community use. There is also a rocky peninsula between the two lakes (locally known as “the point”), low to the water and narrow with a small number of trees, which I believe is also an unleased portion of the corporation land. This has been the site in the past of annual community bonfires and corn roasts and the like on summer statutory holidays, and is a popular stopping place for paddlers and children exploring the lakes. It is a central part of the wild beauty of the place, including the scenic view from the Engineer Lake – the small number of trees and outcropping rocks on the peninsula have iconically framed the sunset in a Group of Seven-like vista for generations. Severing this already narrow land formation into two narrower slivers owned by the same extended family, as the applications propose, would likely fully eliminate access for the rest of the community, make way for building very close to shallow areas of water, and significantly damage a scene of remarkable natural beauty.

Because of the environmental/land capacity concerns, social/community land use concerns, and application integrity concerns noted above, I oppose the severance applications. I humbly request that the ERO deny the three severance applications, or should the Registry choose to grant the applications, that they do so with building restrictions and traditional land use allowances on all the severed lots, and revert the rocky peninsula between the two lakes to Crown land with compensation to the corporation.