For the second time in as many years the issue of public access to local lakes was on the County of St. Paul council agenda for discussion. Last year, it was St. Paul Beach on St. Vincent Lake, and this year concerns have arisen at Floatingstone Lake.
A delegation of lot owners from the Floatingstone Estates subdivision appeared before council Aug. 11 seeking some resolution to an ongoing concern of an increasing number of people using a private roadway to access the lake and parking ATVs, golf carts and vehicles near the beach area and encroaching onto private lake lots.
Council was informed that when the subdivision was developed in the mid-1970s by the Loney family, an eight-acre parcel was gifted to the county for future development for recreational/lake access for non-lakefront property owners. That was never done. Instead, local residents and others through the years have continued to use the private roadway, built specifically by the developer to service the lakefront lots, to access the beach area in front of the lots.
However, with rising water and increasing public use of the lakefront, the property owners have had enough.
In a letter provided to council, several lot owners who were also part of the delegation, expressed concern that they had been told the county was considering installing a gate, fencing and erecting signs in the area prohibiting motorized access to the lake via the private road, which serves as an entrance to their lots.
While they said they would welcome signs reinforcing foot traffic only in attempt to improve safety and reduce congestion in the area, they did not support fencing “in an area that would encourage non-lakefront property owners to park their motorized vehicles in front of our lakefront property. Our families did not purchase a lakefront parking lot, we purchased lakefront property which is adjacent to Crown land.”
Delegates said they would support installing a gate at top of their private access road where it intersects with Bidlock Drive, with vehicle access through the gate being limited to the property owners and guests.
“The traffic going up and down there, it’s like we’re on a main road. It’s one of the busiest places there,” one of the delegation members said, adding there is a significant safety issue. He has asked people to slow down through the area countless time and “been given the finger” for his troubles. He said it wasn’t unusual to see “40 or 50 trucks and golf carts” parked in the area leading up to the beach.
CAO Sheila Kitz informed council that while there had been discussion with the Public Works department about erecting signs to increase safety in the area, no plan existed to install a gate.
In respect to the County’s eight-acre undeveloped parcel, Kitz said the area has some potential but would take some planning as to how it could best be used to provide an alternative access to the lake in the area for non-lakefront property owners.
Reeve Steve Upham said while he understood the concerns, when it comes to lakefronts, lot owners need to recognize that their property does not extend to the water’s edge and there is environmental and municipal reserve areas to consider. He said the issue has arisen at other local lakes over the years with lot owners and the general public disagreeing over the boundary line between private and public.
Council eventually agreed to erect “Caution: Children playing” and “No ATVs” on the access road.
