2

Volume

Lambton Shores Community Association

Responses to the Grand Bend Beach Research and Consultation Initiative

DRAFT REPORT March 2011 Paper

 L A M B T O N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I AT I O N

Response to the Beach Study Draft Report

 Lambton Shores Community Association

P.O. Box 1016
Grand Bend, ON N0M 1T0
Phone 519-238-5572
Email:LSCommunityasssoc@gmail.com
 1
Chapter

Response to Beach Policy (Monteith report, draft, March 2011):

In response to your request for comments on the Grand Bend Beach Research and Consultation
Initiative, please consider the following:

BACKGROUND:

The Grand Bend Beach Research and Consultation is the direct result of community
disapproval, during the summer of 2010, of the Municipal government’s renting of Grand Bend
beaches to volleyball entrepreneurs and their local supporters. This decision to rent the beach was
reached largely without community consultation. In the summer of 2010, 800 people signed a
petition to protest the renting of the beach (once they discovered the arrangement), and hundreds,
in further protest, attended a town meeting. The overwhelming community message was that the
community of Grand Bend did not want volleyball on its beaches and did not want the beach rented
out to entrepreneurs such as those wanting to run volleyball camps and tournaments from May to
October.

POINT #1:

Currently, at the beginning of the summer of 2011, the Municipality is publicizing the
Monteith-Brown recommendations (paid for by the Municipality and community taxpayers), and is
once again trying to rent out the beaches, notwithstanding community disapproval. The most
important recommendation of this document is contained in the following excerpt, because it
relates specifically (although in a carefully veiled way) to the sustained desire on the part of the local
Municipal government (and against the wishes of the Grand Bend community…), to have volleyball ,
and related, for-rent activities, on Grand Bend’s beaches. While these for-profit activities, say
Monteith-Brown, should perhaps not take place on long weekends, they are recommended for every
other summer day and evening, perhaps from May until October:

“As such, it is recommended that the Municipality develop a policy that will prohibit
commercial events on long weekends (Victoria Day, Canada Day, August Civic
Holiday, and Labour Day), but will allow up to two commercial events on Main Beach
during prime season, provided the ecological health of the beach is respected, the
event not take up a large portion of the beach, and the event be affiliated with a
Lambton Shores community group and/or business. The proposed partnership
framework (which can be found in the Partnerships subsection of this Research and
Consultation Initiative) should be utilized to ensure that the Municipality’s best
interests are served by the relationship. In addition, it is recommended that activities,
events and other commercial ventures that take place in Grand Bend, but off-beach,

1
should be supported by the Municipality, in part for their potential to draw visitors to
the beach area. For 2011, private beach rates are $218.25 per day (plus hydro)…” ( 46
).

It is also worth noting that the above recommendation to rent the beach during most of the
summer season is buried in the body of the report, on page 46, and is not part of the list of
supposedly main recommendations in the Executive Summary; In the Executive Summary, instead,
readers are reassured that ecology, natural beauty and cleanliness are prominent report concerns.
It is eminently clear that the notion of renting the beach to entrepreneurs was resoundingly
rejected by concerned community members in the summer of 2010 –yet their rejection is being
overridden by the writers of this report (and, presumably, by the Municipality which hired
Monteith-Brown).

Furthermore, Monteith-Brown appears to misinterpret (or misapply) its own research and
solicitation of community opinion. For example, consider the response to statistics describing the
Community Feedback Survey. According to this Survey, the majority of respondents valued most
(for beach use) Scenic Views, Walking, Playing in the Sand, Sun Tanning, Casual/Unorganized
Beach Sports, etc. Fewer than 15% mentioned volleyball, and volleyball was categorized with
“Other” activities such as wildlife viewing and kayaking. More than 63% thought “the Beach should
be a place for residents to enjoy passive uses.”

Additionally, according to the Community Feedback Survey, “camps or clinics (42%),

volleyball tournaments (35%), and other sport and recreation tournaments (36%) were preferred
not to take place on the beach at all” (37). With these statistics, how can Monteith-Brown
pretend to be representing the community? Why bother with community surveys if community
preferences are then overridden and discounted? Some of this report’s recommendations,
particularly regarding the rental of the beach, directly contradict the results of the Community
Feedback Survey, particularly those regarding commercialized beach use and rental.

POINT #2:

I also object to Monteith-Brown’s recommendation to adopt the New York City- based
organization PPS and its 10-point strategies for land use. The “waterfront” examples on PPS’s
website are mainly for huge cities such as London, England, Barcelona, Spain, and Sydney,
Australia, and none of these waterfronts have the natural beauty, grace and tranquility of Grand
Bend’s beaches. Indeed, many of them are large harbors –which Grand Bend is not. Additionally, it
strikes me as ironic that on the front cover of this report, Monteith-Brown has included a lovely
photograph of Grand Bend at its summer’s best, featuring people engaged in unstructured leisure
and play –exactly what the Grand Bend community would prefer its beaches to remain, and which
Monteith-Brown and the Municipality wish to replace with volleyball courts and the like. PPS’s
waterfront photos, unlike the beach portrayed on the front of this report, are of harbors, concrete
paved waterfronts, roads, buildings, etc. –and not many swimmers…

Lastly, I question Monteith-Brown’s choice of lakefront models (e.g. Goderich, Kingston,

Coburg, etc.), and its omissions of other, more suitable beach models such as Bayfield, Port Franks,
Ipperwash and Sarnia, where beaches are preserved rather than assaulted-and they’re not rented
out to entrepreneurs.

2
 As an alternative model, I suggest Grand Bend’s Municipality consider the management of
some beautiful beaches in Sarasota, Florida, particularly Siesta Key , with its large expanse of
untouched beach. This beach looks much more like Grand Bend’s beach (albeit on a smaller scale)
than any photo on PPS’ website. And please note the following mandate from Sarasota’s Beach Use
and Restrictions Guidelines: “The Beaches, Public Beach Parks and Public Recreation Areas of the
County have been traditionally used for noncommercial recreational activities and commercial
solicitation is inconsistent with the recreational purposes for which such recreational areas are
used.”

http://search.municode.com/html/11511/level3/PTIICOOR_CH90PAREPULA_ARTIIUSPABEPU
LA.html

POINT 3:

I invite the Grand Bend Municipality and community, together, as a new start and a
community effort, to consider a long-term plan that expands its vision to include more than the
notion of “beach use” by youthful volleyball players (or the equivalent): the village needs to
reconsider the image it wishes to present to current and future tourists, and ways to attract them.
Why is it, for example, that Bayfield attracts tourists with lots of money to spend, while Grand Bend
continues to peddle tattoos, bars, hot dogs, and wet t-shirt contests?

On long weekends, we have a huge and omnipresent police force cruising the town (a consequence
of appealing to a certain segment of the youth market).For years, Grand Bend has struggled with its
history and image of a biker town. Currently, the Municipality (supported by Monteith-Brown)
wants to add the image of a volleyball camp/tournament (or the equivalent). Volleyball players are
not likely to spend a lot of money while they’re in town for a game; indeed, most of them cart
coolers to the beach. Cottagers, on the other hand, buy food, alcohol, hardware supplies, etc. If
cottagers and tourists who prefer casual, unstructured play on the beaches need to dodge 50
volleyball courts to get to the water, they may well decide to go elsewhere, along with their dollars; if
a stray volleyball should crush the skull of a toddler, families will be even less inclined to spend
family time on the beach.

Perhaps the Municipality of Grand Bend is aiming to put its fragile eggs into a rather unproductive
basket –and perhaps other plans should be in place related to upgrading the village’s image and
target market. If consultants can be hired to promote beach use, surely consultants can be hired to
survey successful beach towns (such as Bayfield) and recommend business practices and options
that will appeal to a more upscale market. I believe we can do better and that we can do it as a
community.

In summary, I disagree strongly with Monteith-Brown’s recommendations to continue, and

increase, the rental of Grand Bend’s beaches. I also believe the report is misleading in that the
results of its Community Feedback Survey are ignored and overridden. Grand Bend’s community
has voiced its disapproval of plans to commercialize and rent out the beach . Monteith-Brown and
the Municipality continue to ignore the voices of the Grand Bend community.

Stefanie Ketley, Ph.D.

Language and Liberal Studies
Fanshawe College

3
 2
Chapter

The Lambton Shores Community Association strongly endorse this response document from an
LSCA member.

Other Issues surrounding the Grand

Bend Beaches
On Page 45 of the Draft Report -Recommended Action

It is recommended that the Municipality of Lambton Shores continue to track the daily
interactions at each parking meter within the municipal parking lots and on Main Street in Grand
Bend to monitor beach visits. This will allow the Municipality to compare trends in visits from
summer to summer, as well as on long weekends versus regular weekends, etc. to determine needs
for additional amenities, maintenance efforts, etc.

While tracking is important it will NOT give the Municipality the full picture of parking
trends. Huge numbers of cars are parking in the Sobey’s-Shoppers parking lot, in front
of the entrance to the Grave Yard in Plan 24, the area around the TD Bank, in the
Gables parking lot and any where else they can find.

Since these lots are not metered large numbers of visitors and their activities cannot
be accounted for and some other means to collect this information may be needed. It
certainly cannot be discounted as the community feels this is a HUGE issue.

2 hours of parking can hardly get you to the beach and settled and in the water...before you
have to run back to the meter.

On Page 48 of the Draft Report -

To facilitate casual participation in sand volleyball, it is recommended that the Municipality of

Lambton Shores install four sets of beach volleyball net posts; potential locations will need to be
assessed.

We are also concerned about the installation of four sets of beach volleyball net posts.
Four permanent volleyball posts are unnecessary. Pick-up volleyball players bring, set

4
up and take down their own equipment. This eliminates the need and the cost to the
municipality to do so.

On most of the poster boards, the specific beach area that was being discussed was
pointedly identified (North Beach, South Beach, Main Beach) with one exception
relating to the proposal to locate 4 pairs of volleyball posts on the Grand Bend beach
(This is NOT specific enough). Consultants were confused on this issue. This needs to
be clarified in the final document or recommendations.

On Page 51 of the Draft Report

Recommended Action

It is recommended that the Municipality of Lambton Shores strive to satisfy the items on the
checklist of components of a world class lakefront beach (including items such as placing limits on
residential waterfront development, promoting access to the waterfront by means other than
private vehicles, maintaining community vision through good management, honouring local
identity, history and culture, etc.) to the greatest degree possible.

Recommended Actions

It is recommended that the Municipality of Lambton Shores continue with this process of dune
restoration and dune grass plantings to reduce unnecessary erosion and beach loss, provided that
ample beach space is left for recreational purposes.

Several members also object to more dune grass being planted. Some have suggested
that the plantings, rocks and snow fences between the boardwalk and the water be
removed. More dune grass will consume more beach space that is sorely needed in
high season.

To better balance tourism and environmental protection of the beach, it is recommended that the
Municipality of Lambton Shores reduce the frequency of its grooming of the Grand Bend Beach (in
2010, the beach groomer was used daily between Father’s Day and Labour Day on the Main
Beach and every other day on North Beach) for the upcoming 2011 summer season. It is
recommended that the Main Beach and the North Beach each be groomed twice per week
(perhaps the day before and the day after the weekends; Fridays and Mondays for regular
weekends and Fridays and Tuesdays for long weekends) to attempt to limit the environmental
impacts upon the beach.

LSCA received many concerned comments about the recommendation above. Many
members live close to the North and Main beaches and see a large build up of garbage
very quickly if both are not cleaned regularly.

5
 3
Chapter

In response to these concerns several residents were told by the Consultant’s staff that the
municipality would pick up the garbage manually in between cleanings. This seems highly
improbable.

The beach needs to be pristine and that must remain clear.

Summary

It should be noted that the Lambton Shores Community Association sees a great deal about the Beach
Study that is of a positive nature and would like to applaud the detail in it.

The Lambton Shores Community Association does seek clarification of the “Next Steps” to ensure our
members concerns have been correctly identified. Consequently we are asking the Municipality and
the Consultants to respond to us with dates in the expected process.

Are the Consultants coming back to the Municipality with a Revised Report?
Will there be a Final Report?

How long will it take the Consultant to come back to the Municipality with material?

We expect the Municipality to notify us with the dates and Council meetings for the Consultant’s
Report.