Municipality of Bifrost-Riverton council approved rezoning of land in Finns so that a proposed residential development on a 148-acre parcel can proceed.
Landowner Marg Wopnford and Stephen Wopnford are intending to build an 18-lot development along Lake Winnipeg. The development will have 17 lots for residences and one lot for either public parking or drainage works. It includes an access road from Finns Road (Road 126N).
In order to let the project proceed, council had to change the zoning of the land (via Bylaw No. 09-2025) from agricultural limited zone to recreation residential zone. Council passed first reading of the bylaw on July 10, according to the Eastern Interlake Planning District’s rezoning package. Council then scheduled a public hearing on Sept. 11 in council chambers before the final two readings of the bylaw.
After the hearing, council approved the Wopnfords’ rezoning request subject to conditions that include the public reserve remains zoned as agricultural limited, that council confirms “whether” an environmental groundwater management review is required, that all elevations for development meet or exceed minimum requirements and that the developer has approval from the provincial government and other agencies.
Bifrost-Riverton resident Glenda Whiteman lives near the development. She attended the public hearing in September and was permitted to express her objections to the project, which she says will destroy wetland and wildlife habitat and lead to flooding.
“I spoke about my concerns about birds [loss of habitat], flooding and people buying houses then finding out later they’re in a swamp,” said Whiteman. “I forgot to tell them about my concern that the road can’t handle this much construction; they’re already potholed. So I called the RM and spoke with [a woman], saying that if council approves this, could a condition be that the road is oiled. She said she could put that in for council to approve. She seemed to think it was a forgone conclusion it was approved.”
Whiteman said council had received other objections in addition to hers, and that they “flashed” one up on a screen during the public hearing, but it was too small to read.
She said council asked her if Wopnfords’ property is a “designated wetland” to which she said she didn’t know.
“For some reason they thought I would know that. I didn’t know about designated wetlands,” said Whiteman. “In my opinion, all wetland is important and there’s no such thing as ones we should save and ones we shouldn’t save. They should all be preserved.”
A couple that attended the hearing were in favour of the development, said Whiteman.
Council’s approval of the rezoning request comes after its approval of the developers’ subdivision application. Council had passed a resolution on March 13, approving the 18-lots and new road with conditions that included permanent structures be located on land at “at least 722 feet … or raised by fill to that elevation,” that lot lines, permanent structures and roads be set back from the existing top of shoreline embankment “a sufficient distance” [undefined] to allow for a stable slope, and that the riparian area be protected by a “100-foot [30 metres] restricted development area” to preserve natural vegetation next to the high water mark.
Objections included a letter from two engineers, Wayne and Colleen Flather, who own property to the north of the 18-lot development. They said alterations to the Wopnfords’ property will likely flood theirs and that a previous development had failed.
“With more than 50 years in the vicinity, we have historical knowledge of the previous failed development of the subject property, resulting in flooding and environmental damage,” wrote the Flathers. “Approximately 40 years ago, a developer filled in the wetland, construct[ed] an access road, and removed the trees and other vegetation along the shoreline of the subject property. The fragile sand ridge had been held in place by the trees and vegetation, and when they were removed, the sand ridge eroded and our property flooded, rendering it temporarily unusable. The development proposal was deemed unusable and was abandoned.”
The Nature Conservancy also objected to the development.
As a commenting agency and in accordance with its Integrated Watershed Management Plan, the East Interlake Watershed District (EIWD) told the Express that it had provided its feedback regarding the Finns development to the provincial community planning branch in Selkirk in December 2024.
EIWD had recommended the property not be developed because the land is below 722 feet and that coastal wetlands or “other types of wetlands” might be in or near the property. It also recommended a 100-metre [over 300 feet] setback from the lake.
“[This] property is at a high risk of flooding from Lake Winnipeg and is below the flood protection level of 722 feet Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1928 (CGVD28). Land below that elevation shall not be developed,” said the EIWD. “Coastal wetlands or other types of wetlands might be in or near the property in question. EIWD recommends a Wetland Assessment Report (WAR) should be needed before further development.”
The EIWD also said a 100-metre buffer [not a 100-foot buffer] is crucial for preserving natural vegetation along waterways, essential for a “healthy riparian ecosystem,” helps with erosion protection by stabilizing soil with plants, acts a filter to trap pollutants from entering waterways, and provides habitat to wildlife.
“Given these benefits, it would be very difficult to approve development within this 100-meter setback area,” said the EIWD.
The Express asked council and its chief administrative officers if council will be requesting a wetland assessment report, whether the developer has permission under the Water Rights Act and from the federal government to alter wetlands, whether council is aware the property is below 722 feet (as indicated by the EIWD), and whether the developer will be bringing in fill material to raise up the property.
“Conditions are listed on the resolution,” said CAO Larissa Love, in response to the questions about the property being below 722 feet and if council is requesting a wetland assessment report.
She said the developer will have to answer the questions about fill material and permission to alter wetlands.
Love shared Stephen Wopnford’s contact email, but the Express’s email bounced back.
