All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Friday, April 19th, 2024

Minor parking bylaw changes recommended to ‘reflect lessons learned’

UPDATE: Wellington core amendments:

  • Adding no-parking restrictions on the entire south side of Water Street to better manage parking in this area.
  • Adding no-parking restrictions on the north side of Niles Street between Maple Street and Wharf Street in Wellington to better allow for two-way traffic on this narrow road.

Seasonal no-parking amendments:

  • Amending the timing of the seasonal no-parking provisions on County Road 27 (North Beach Road). The start and end date of the seasonal no-parking restrictions will now align with the opening and closing of North Beach Provincial Park. Parking will also be permitted on the north side of the road only during the Park’s operating season, between 8 pm and 8 am.
  • Reducing the seasonal no-parking restrictions by 50 metres on the north side approaching the turning circle at the end of County Road 20 (Huyck’s Point Road), where parking will not affect traffic.
  • Adding a seasonal no-parking restriction on the south side of Bakker Road, from the end of the road to a point 100 metres east, to reduce crowding in the parking area, while permitting overflow parking down the road.
  • Adding a seasonal no-parking restriction to the north side of the lane to Lake Ontario at the northwesterly end of Stinson Block. To accommodate parking in this area, the seasonal no-parking restriction has been reduced by 300 metres on the north side of Stinson Block Road, starting at 1218 Stinson Block Road and heading westerly.

Other amendments:

  • Adding no parking restrictions in the immediate vicinity of municipal boat launch ramps (as signed) to reduce crowding and improve safety at the boat launches. Launch users are reminded to be aware of signs and obey parking restrictions as posted at each facility.

Staff have begun the process of amending signage at all locations, which could take several weeks in some cases. Where parking restrictions have been lifted, the public may begin parking in those areas effective immediately. Where parking restrictions have been added, the by-laws will not be enforced until the relevant signage has been installed.

UPDATE: Council recessed before finishing these motions and the remainder of the evening’s agenda, due to thunderstorms playing havoc with internet connections. This issue will continue after Thursday’s Committee of the Whole meeting.

Regarding the contentious issue of parking at Lake on the Mountain, Mayor Steve Ferguson attempted to waive the procedural bylaw to allow further discussion but did not receive the required two-thirds support from council.

Ryan Kreutzwiser, owner of a Lake on the Mountain Resort, had addressed council earlier stating the no parking amendments to add 10 or 11 spaces do not go far enough and will cause the closure of two restaurants and end 40 jobs.

“To be frank this is because of a few complaining neighbours one of which is a councillor at your table and a small handful of residents who are inconvenienced by having to slow down to an appropriate speed travelling through the 400 meters that is Lake on the Mountain.”

The restaurants and the park, he said, require parking on both sides of the road as has been for generations.

JULY 12: Where people can, and cannot, park vehicles in Prince Edward County is back before council Tuesday night as municipal staff present minor amendments to the parking bylaw “that reflect lessons learned” since the bylaw passed in April.

“The proposed amendments in this report are minor in nature to address some points of confusion or conflict,” said Andy Harrison, Chief Building Official, in his report to council. “Staff will return at the end of the season with a more fulsome lessons learned report on the Tourism Management Plan, which could lead to more substantive changes to the parking bylaw for future seasons.”

Following intense public controversy over parking issues at Lake on the Mountain, municipal staff recommend the Traffic Advisory Committee identify additional calming measures and speed controls for the 2022 season, with consultation from Provincial Park staff, and include business owners with regard to potential for additional parking to the business properties as part of a longer-term solution.

In the meantime, “In the interest of finding a compromise, staff are recommending limited parking be allowed on the south side of the lands to the west of the Lake on the Mountain Provincial Park for the summer 2021 season only.”

Water Street, Wellington:
Amend oversight by staff to include Water Street southerly, from West to Narrow streets at all times. Currently the bylaw lists a two-hour restriction for the north side, which Harrison notes wuld be more consistent with expectations of residents in the area.

Two-hour parking in Wellington:
Staff propose the north side of Niles be restricted to parking. Harrison states feedback from residents of Niles Street has suggested the north side of the road should be restricted to allow for two-way traffic and one parking lane. There is no boulevard on the north side between Wharf and Maple streets; the road cross section does not support two-way traffic and two parking lanes.

County Road 27:
UPDATE: Approved changing “all times” to restricting parking on both sides of the road when the park is open. When operating season but not operating hours, people can park on one side. In the off season, people may park as they wish.
Staff recommend the no parking be amended from “all times” to “Provincial Park seasonal opening to closing” as North Beach has a different season than Sandbanks. “Parking on County Road 27 is not an issue in the off-season when the park is closed and there is no parking for residents who walk in the area off-season.”

County Road 20:
Staff recommend lifting the seasonal no-parking area at the easterly end of the turning circle at Huycks Bay Road as restrictions made in April have backed up parking in the area to both sides of the narrow road which has limited shoulder width and is causing problems for residents. “County Road 20 is a full width road and has a sufficiently wide shoulder on the north side to allow for parking without affecting traffic. In addition, there are no residential driveways on that section.” Staff recommend a reduction of the limits of the north side restriction by 50 metres to permit additional parking.

Municipal boat launches:
Staff seek added no parking restrictions in the immediate vicinity of all municipal boat launches.

“The change is based on observations by the County’s bylaw enforcement staff. This will prevent crowding of the ramp by launch users and discourage non-launch users from parking in the vicinity of the ramp.”

Bakker Road:
Keep north side restrictions and recommend a new south side restriction from the end of the roadway to 100 metres easterly.

Staff report receiving mixed feedback from citizens about restrictions at the west end of Bakker Road. Staff recommend the change to keep the road in the vicinity of the parking area clear, but to allow for overflow parking further to the east.

Stinson Block Road:
UPDATE: Discussion underway to seek ways to reduce restrictions safely.
Extension of the no parking area on the north side of the lane to Lake Ontario to permit access for the property owner. Staff note that while confusion with the changes to parking prevail, an awareness campaign and clear signage will familiarize people with amendments and promise to continue to review and monitor for complaints.


Filed Under: Local News

About the Author:

RSSComments (24)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Mike Rodgers says:

    The Royal sits in the down town core which falls under different requirements.

  2. Stephen says:

    The council needs to hang their head in shame with the decision affecting the Root family on Huycks Point. A gathering that has happened for years without issues but now they are told ”not again”.

  3. Dennis Fox says:

    I believe that Chuck has asked a grerat question – where is the parking for the Royal Hotel? For a municipality to be so concerned about the parking at LOM – why have they allowed downtown businesses to take over parking space to expand their outside patio space – making parking all that more difficult for those who want to shop, go to the bank or library, etc..

    A lot more public consultation needs to take place before by-laws are invented by – by who and for who??

  4. Dave H. says:

    Perhaps the parking at LOM would not be so severe if there was more parking made available on the resorts propertuy. The OMB hearing allowed 9 parking spots for a 45 seat restaurant—really.

  5. Mark says:

    Consultation was key, and it never happened. Beyond me how Council ruled on this without input from all.

  6. olmnonthemtn says:

    What these LOM parking restriction have done is to kick the problem of a narrowing of the road to further down County Rd 7 past the park where there are deep ditches on the right side forcing cars to park partly on the road. Meanwhile there are also cars parked on the left creating a gauntlet for 2 way traffic and forcing pedestrians (including children in strollers, those in wheelchairs, the elderly) to walk on the pavement. Further there is the possibility due to parking volume for pedestrians to have to traverse a fair distance. Some of us in the hamlet wanted this problem addressed but were never consulted.

  7. Chuck says:

    If that is the case that a business must provide adequate parking then where I dare ask is the Royal Hotel parking?

  8. Mike Rodgers says:

    Had anyone in the past driven through the LOM resort area during the tourist season they would realize something needed to be done. Just enough room for one lane traffic, people walking in the middle of the road not giving way for traffic, auto doors being swung open into on coming traffic, kids darting in and out of between parked cars (adults also). Maybe what has happened is a bit too severe but something needs to be done. There is a bylaw I believe that requires a business to supply so many square of parking for every square foot of commerce. If such a bylaw is in existence then enforce it period.

  9. Michelle says:

    Thousands of tourists enjoying our space but a local family gathering on their own property is denied. This is just so not right.

  10. Susan says:

    Council is failing to act to protect local landowners and long term businesse’s. This has really ignited fire within local residents and the feeling is enough is enough. Get your hands off my property. All the tourism controls are affecting local life not tourist life. Why would a councilor not support the Lake on the Mountain 30 year business?

  11. LB says:

    For perspective, this was 4 or 5 fairly good sized RVs parked on a vacant lakeside lot that is fairly narrow and completely open to the road. It looked like someone may have rented the site out to campers. Which wasn’t the case. But maybe next year it will be 6 or 7 RVs, maybe every long weekend. If this does not impact the neighbours or the neighborhood then what difference does it make if they charged people to stay on the site or in this case, for free because it was friends and family? If it’s none of our business what people do with their property then why get so upset when there’s an STA down the road? An STA offends you? Maybe a pop up trailer park offends others. The actual Root situation is no big deal. Once or twice a year. A very bright man once told me to “be your own neighbour”, meaning make sure there’s lots of space between you and the next guy. He certainly had a point.

  12. Sam says:

    Council seems unwilling to acknowledge their mistakes. They are now adding more restrictions to public boat launches. Private security driving around issuing outrageous fines. Bylaw officers advising landowners to remove tents and trailers.
    Disappointed with councils heavy handed approach, new leadership needed

  13. Chuck says:

    Landowners need to fight back and regain their rights. Can you imagine if this sort of thing happened in Alberta. They would not stand for it for a second. Electing Councilors that support landowner rights which are diminishing quickly is necessary.

  14. Bruce Nicholson says:

    This LOM parking issue has become an embarrassment for current council for not recognizing the error of their earlier decision to ban the parking. May they pay the price in the next municipal elections.

  15. Janet V Keogh says:

    The Times article that brought attention to Bylaw enforcement of private recreational vehicles on private property for the purpose of family and friends get-togethers needs serious revisiting! This is a major invasion of rural property owners rights and another nail in the quality of life of the residents of Prince Edward County

  16. angela says:

    Blame those so eager to make a buck that they allowed our summer visitors to set up camp on their land for a fee.

  17. Emily says:

    You can no longer invite family to camp on your own property. Outrageous.

  18. Jim says:

    I was dismayed by the article in this weeks times that residents were told of new bylaw (but not fined) and will no longer be able to have their once a year family gathering on their very large lot. Families visiting had trailers etc set up and were advised that they were contravening the byaw on camping.

    Does this mean if my grandchildren want to sleep in a tent pitched in my back yard that the By-Law officer will fine us?

    Please.. let common sense prevail

  19. Gary says:

    Municipal elections used to be held every 2 years. Wouldn’t that be quite appropriate now.

  20. Fred says:

    The loser from all this is a long term business owner and the employees. Slapping $400 fines on customers is not good leadership.

  21. Emily says:

    6 Councilors let a 30 year County business down. This issue will not go away.

  22. Sam says:

    Council has added parking restrictions and enforcement on almost all public water access points. Attempt to discourage tourism. In affect hurts small business and locals.
    More balanced approach to these issues seems reasonable.
    Lake on the Mountain employs 40 people.
    Agreed change is needed.

  23. Dennis Fox says:

    I too am very disappointed with Council and their “Lake of the Mountain” parking action – or should I say “reaction?” punishing the public and business.

  24. Mark says:

    Very dissapointing that Councils decision was not to address Lake on the Mountain parking issue. This was very much the key matter tonite and it went unadressed. Sad. Did I hear change is needed.

OPP reports
lottery winners
Elizabeth Crombie Janice-Lewandoski
Home Hardware Picton Sharon Armitage

© Copyright Prince Edward County News 2024 • All rights reserved.