Do not allow development of Ireson Island
To the Expositor:
I have just sent this letter to the four NEMI (Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands) council and Planning Board members and wanted you to also understand my concerns regarding the above issue.
My brothers—one from Chicago, one from St. Louis and one from Cleveland—are co-owners of R Island, a small island with main house, bunkhouse, outbuildings, etc., located on the north side of the main channel, just across the from the Island Lodge’s property. We have owned this cottage since 1969 and have spent many wonderful vacations there. The Island Lodge used to be a treasured part of our experience, especially when we would to go over for an evening meal and play pool as a special outing!
We love the area, and as avid fisherman, have been concerned at the decline in the quality of fishing over the past 15 years. We believe that the significant amount of new development on the mainland, especially in Red Deer Village, has taken a toll on both the water quality and the amount of fish removed (we observe catch and release).
Recently we have become aware of potential development of the Island Lodge property into 16 parcels. We believe that, if allowed to occur, there would be far more significant deterioration in both water quality and quality of life that we have come to truly appreciate. The fact that the island is only reachable by water transportation, means many more boats would be on the water, many more slips would be needed on the river (which are already in very short supply) and many more people would be fishing in areas already experiencing far more pressure than ever before. It also means, versus the new homes on the shoreline, that most of these parcels likely would be developed into rental properties, with far greater use (and misuse) than cottages on the shoreline and the various islands. Most important, the number of homes in this one location would have a major effect on water quality through the use of many more septic systems (in addition to numerous systems already constructed on the shoreline back to the Whitefish River).
My reason for taking the time to write is to state that we are vehemently opposed to any development of this property beyond its originally intended use. Quite frankly, when that property was purchased, it was closed in a very abrupt manner and not used at all. This would appear to be the originally contrived plan—to delay a non-controversial period of time, then request development of the island as an alternative to operating as a small resort, as constructed and intended. We hope that you will give this matter the serious attention it deserves and determine that the proposed plan is unacceptable and be rejected, and that the only permitted use is as originally designed.
Thanks for your attention.
Sincerely,
Thomas N. Tyrrell
Richfield, Ohio
