Amid much opposition to a proposed recreational vehicle (RV) park along Chalet Beach Road, close to the Village of Dunnottar municipal boundary, council for the RM of St. Andrews approved the park after a public hearing on Nov. 10.
Conceptual site plan of Phase 1 which will create 86 RV spots
Fifteen property owners spoke in opposition to the proposed Chalet Beach RV Park during the pubic hearing while others registered in opposition, wrote letters in opposition or signed an online petition.
The RV park is located just west of Gimli Road (the old highway), close to an existing subdivision called Everwood that was developed a few years ago and close to the western outskirts of Matlock. The park’s main access will be from Chalet Beach Road.
Dunnottar, which is made up of the communities of Ponemah, Whytewold and Matlock, will bear the brunt of an influx of people to the area and experience pressure on its municipal infrastructure, services and other issues such as aquifer capacity, according to residents who opposed the development. Dunnottar is the only built-up area with amenities in the area. The next closest towns are Winnipeg Beach to the north and Petersfield to the south.
RV park applicant/owner Tony Teixeira from JMT Holdings Inc. asked St. Andrew’s council to approve a conditional use compatible with a Recreation Commercial Zone for 77 acres.
The property is currently zoned Agricultural General and will remain as such as Teixeira did not request land rezoning, St. Andrews’ planning and economic development officer Braeden Bennett told the Express.
Teixeira wants to establish a seasonal serviced recreational facility for camping trailers and RVs. Phase 1 of the park would see 86 trailer spots built along with amenities such as a fenced dog park, splash pad, covered picnic area, screened pavilion and pickle/basketball courts. Each RV spot will have water service and wastewater holding tanks. No information was provided in his application about subsequent phases.
“We feel that the area with its proximity to and easy access to water and beaches, golf courses, stores, and restaurants would be an ideal location for this type of facility,” said Teixeira/JMT in a letter to the Red River Planning District. “The property is heavily treed and the spots will be large and amply spaced in order to create a very private and exclusive recreational experience.”
St. Andrews council’s approval of the RV park came with 16 conditions, including Teixeira having to get required permits, provide the RM with a lot grading and drainage plan and a plan for a secondary point of egress, install wastewater holding tanks on each RV lot, provide onsite washrooms, prohibit parking along Chalet Beach Road, provide a tree buffer and “restrict” ATV use.
Although most of the conditions pertain to the property itself, what happens off the property – the spillover of people to the surrounding area – is a concern of many property owners on the Dunnottar side of the border as they’ll be footing the bill for RV park visitors popping over from the RM of St. Andrews.
Dunnottar ratepayers say RV park visitors will put pressure on Dunnottar infrastructure such as roads and beaches, impact garbage collection and potentially bring even more problematic ATVs into their community. The RV park will also likely increase noise pollution, destroy trees and natural habitat and put pressure on the area’s aquifer. Where the human waste will go – 86 RV spots multiplied by an unknown number of people in each RV – is unknown.
Fifteen people spoke at the public hearing in opposition to the RV park, two people formally registered in opposition, three people registered for information about the park, and an additional 15 people sent letters of opposition to council, according to draft meeting minutes posted on the RM of St. Andrews’ website.
Dunnottar property owner Wendy Buelow was one of the people who submitted a letter of opposition. She watched the public hearing via YouTube.
She said that although there was a “groundswell” of opposition to the proposed RV park, it didn’t seem to make an impact on St. Andrews’ council.
“I’m very disappointed and sad,” said Buelow, referring to council’s approval of the development. “I feel they rushed this through. They’d only had the application sometime in October I believe; this was a very short period of time and I don’t think a lot of the important issues were really looked in to. There were lots of questions …. It seemed that council didn’t ask Mr. Teixeira the hard questions.”
Buelow said she and other Dunnottar ratepayers are worried about the “pressure” on their village and beaches, and they don’t know how the RV park might affect the water table. The RV park could also “open the door” to even more development on Dunnottar’s border.
One of her main concerns, and that of others, is habitat destruction that will come with the razing of trees and the clearing of understory in order to construct the RV park, she said. That will have an impact on birds – including the federally protected pileated woodpecker – and other wildlife living on the property.
Those in opposition would like to see the provincial government carry out an environmental assessment [EA] of the property – which should also include impacts on the area’s aquifer – but she said she doesn’t know whether it’s up to St. Andrews council to formally request that or whether people’s concerns about habitat loss will prompt the province to take action; she knows that people have written to the province. She herself reached out to the Red River Planning District was told there is “nothing on the books” at this point.
“We would like to see an environmental assessment because this is a sensitive area,” said Buelow. “There’s already been a new development recently [Everwood, just south of the Matlock border]. That developer said they’d maintain trees. But that meant bulldozing the land, putting up houses and planting a tree on a lawn.”
A Dunnottar resident, Laurie Dear, started a petition on Change.org opposing the RV park and submitted it to St. Andrews council, but council rejected it as the signatures hadn’t been “witnessed,” said Buelow. As of Nov. 15, the petition had 299 signatures.
It states that the area is “cherished by locals for its tranquil beauty and natural surroundings, is home to a diverse array of wildlife, including deer, rabbits, raccoons, and coyotes. The proposed campground would disrupt this vibrant ecosystem, forcing these animals out of their habitats, potentially leading to a decline in their populations.
“Beyond the environmental concerns, the development brings with it the promise of increased traffic and noise. All-terrain vehicles and a steady stream of visiting campers would mar the peacefulness that residents have long cherished. Our neighborhood, a sanctuary for both humans and animals, would see a rise in trespassing, not only threatening our safety but also invading our privacy.”
Kathy Magnusson, who has lived in Dunnottar for 30 years and is a current Dunnottar councillor, said in her personal letter of opposition that she’s not against development in principle, but there’s a need for St. Andrews’ council to exercise “due diligence” with regard to the RV park. Several concerns that were brought to her attention include habitat loss, a demand for an environmental assessment that would include the property’s impact on a nearby marsh, impact on the aquifer, sewage management, increased traffic that would require upgrades to Dunnottar roads that “would presumably be funded by your municipality,” congestion in Ralph Beach, and bylaw enforcement.
The Express reached out to Magnusson for comment.
RM of St. Andrews’ residents Joy and Cam MacLean and Campbell MacLean and Ashley Roberts, who live less than one kilometre from the proposed RV park, submitted a joint letter of opposition to council, outlining the impact on the environment, public welfare and property values.
Impacts on the environment include altering a large “existing wildlife corridor” that extends from the San Souci Forest along Lake Winnipeg, that skirts along the western boundary of Matlock and that reaches down to Chalet Beach Road in the south.
“This … corridor contains over 500 acres of contiguous wildlife habitat, including forests and uncultivated meadows. While there are a few houses and cultivated fields that animals need to cross in places, it provides habitat and forage for numerous species of animals, including deer, river otters, fishers, coyotes, red foxes, snowshoe hares, and jackrabbits – many of which are valued game,” wrote the MacLeans. “There are also upwards of 100 species of birds that either nest in or pass through this corridor during migratory seasons.”
There are only three beaches in the area, the largest of which is Ralph Beach that extends several blocks into Dunnottar. The remaining two beaches – Chalet and Warner – are small, non-serviced beaches capable of holding only a few beachgoers at a time, they wrote. Because there is no supervision and no facilities such as washrooms and refuse bins, garbage, used toilet paper, human feces and dog feces accumulate on the beaches, in ditches and on private property. ATVs and other motorized vehicles rip along Warner Beach, including during the wee hours of the morning, and visitors have lit fires on the beach during municipal fire bans.
“With an additional 200+ campers being introduced into the area, we are concerned that the accumulation of human waste and garbage along Warner Beach may create a health hazard,” wrote the MacLeans. “We would ask that if the RM [of St. Andrews] wishes to treat Warner Beach as a true public beach facility, it provide necessary amenities to allow beachgoers to enjoy it in a safe and sanitary way.”
The Express asked Dunnottar council whether it knows where the human waste will be treated, whether Teixeira or the RM of St. Andrews asked Dunnottar for use of its wastewater lagoon for the RV park, whether it has concerns about the aquifer and why it didn’t make a presentation at the public hearing given the number of ratepayers speaking out in opposition.
On behalf of council, chief administrative officer Sarah Palson told the Express the public hearing for a conditional use was only the first step in the process in order to allow the property to be used for a purpose that doesn’t align with its current zoning.
“The next steps will involve obtaining the necessary permits, including approvals from the Province of Manitoba for the proposed wells and holding tanks. It is at this stage that concerns regarding the wells and holding tanks will be addressed,” said Palson.
Clear plans for wastewater management are “essential” to prevent groundwater contamination and protect Lake Winnipeg “given the site’s proximity and environmental sensitivity,” she said. Those issues will be reviewed during the permitting phase for holding tanks and wells.
“To date, the Village of Dunnottar has not been informed where human waste from the RV park will be treated,” said Palson. “Neither the RM of St. Andrews nor developers have requested use of Dunnottar’s lagoon. The RM operates its own lagoon system, which likely would handle the RV park’s waste.”
Dunnottar recognizes ageing infrastructure challenges in the region, she said, but the Nov. 10 hearing was focused solely on the request for a conditional use. However, increased RV and vehicle traffic “could strain existing roads and facilities, raising safety and maintenance concerns.”
Prior to the meeting, Palson said some Dunnottar residents shared their opinions on social media – both for and against the proposed development. And four people submitted formal concerns directly to Dunnottar council.
