I found this rather difficult logic/reasoning to follow...Lake shore development

[not_nuf_time]

The way i look at the difference of resorters and cabin owners is this. The resorters are there for a week, and go he!!s bells all week long. Jet skis flying, fishing, water skiing, racing around, hitting the water all week. Cause they want to use the time having fun on vacay.

The cabin owner, although would use the lake hard till the novelty wore off, has to come and do lawn, clean cabin, garage do repairs and just lay around having a sauce, cause he's got the whole summer to use the water. In short cabin owners tend to be busier putzing and doing other up north interest, so would logically use the lake less and create less activity on the water than the resorters would throughout the summer.

I would rather live next to an owner than a resort. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT(RESORTS).

[solbes]

I agree that full time owners will have less of a lake impact than a resort. But it's change, and most people fight it internally. That resort's been there for years...

Our property is about 1/4 mile away from a nice resort. Although I get frustrated with the traffic sometimes, I do enjoy watching the kids and adults their fun.

Homes and cottages are always going to increase. We can put some restrictions on minimum lot sizes. Another thing we can do is to lessen the aesthetic impact of more homes by allowing the buffer zone of trees and natural grasses to increase.

But everyone will have their own opinion of what lakeshore property should be. Some people will always want the rock wall, grass to the lake, and removal of every view obstructing tree.