Is it a dispute amongst neighbours or a beef over enforcing a township parking bylaw?
Puslinch Township has approved a request to allow temporary parking on an unopened road allowance in the area of Eagle Lane and Valley Drive east of Puslinch Lake in the hope it will speed up construction of a nearby home.
Lorne Wallace came to council on Dec. 21 with a request to allow temporary parking on the road allowance to provide space for construction/tradespeople.
Wallace said he and his wife Kelly live near the end of Eagle Lane, where their home is currently under construction. He stated the home is one kilometre off Concession 2, down a gravel road, which for the latter half is a single-lane, hilly and winding road, including blind spots and a few areas where one can pull over to allow another vehicle through.
“It is very hard to get up and down that road,” said Wallace.
He added that during home construction, there are a number of tradespeople coming and going throughout the day and the general contractor has a number of people working there as well.
He stated that currently a number of them park in a neighbour’s field – requiring them to either walk or be shuttled back and forth via another vehicle.
Wallace hoped council would agree to allow daytime parking on a triangular section on the road – which he suggested would not impede traffic.
During a previous house construction, there were vehicles parked there but the people “ran into issues with our neighbours.”
Wallace explained the road triangle branches out to the O’Krafka property on one side, and on the other, to additional properties including an additional property owned by O’Krafka.
A smaller connector road leading from the O’Krafka driveway provides easier access to other O’Krafka properties on Eagle Lane.
This is where Wallace wants construction vehicles to park, but the laneway is currently signed as not allowing parking.
Councillor John Sepulis noted employees and contractors have to park about 200m away.
“Anything we can do to hasten that construction by having trade vehicles closer would be a benefit,” said Sepulis.
Councillor Ken Roth also did not foresee issues.
Councillor Matthew Bulmer said when he was involved in the construction trade “we were not allowed to park anywhere near the construction … we managed and parked where we could. It wasn’t really a hardship.”
He added there is already a place where workers can park and shuttle in and out for the day.
Both he and councillor Susan Fielding also wanted to know what the neighbours had to say.
Resident Diane O’Krafka contended their property on Eagle Lane has two driveways – an upper and lower one (one of those is constructed over township land).
She explained the one laneway allows easier access to the other O’Krafka properties.
“We totally understand (the construction challenge) as we built our home here as well,” she said. However, as a result of the construction site not being identified, “our property received many deliveries intended for the building site.”
In one instance, a load of stone was delivered in error and significant damage occurred, O’Krafka said.
She stated the underground electrical service to a storage shed worked prior to the delivery, but “it has not worked since.”
She said the laneway has been used for large trucks as a turnaround, causing further damage.
Sepulis suggested if parking was allowed, construction might proceed faster.
O’Krafka stated it is frustrating not to be able to turn right to access another portion of their property.
She contended if workers utilized the available parking lot and use the driveways, parking should be covered.
Roth clarified that the “bridge” road crossing is township property.
Fielding clarified the O’Krafka’s had access to their property … but some access is limited when there are vehicles parked in the one area.
“This is still municipal property,” Fielding added.
Paul O’Krafka contended that even though it is township property, he considered it a private road access.
“I constructed this access when there was none there, when we purchased our home property in 1988. I paid all the costs to build it, and replaced the gravel on it since that time.”
Paul O’Krafka added, “To be honest, I am amazed and concerned the issue is coming before council in the format it is – and with the recommendation from township staff that this be approved.”
He was also concerned there was no mention by staff that the O’Krafkas had registered concerns about this on numerous occasions.
He said he considered it unconscionable, the neighbours would even ask for this after all the damages caused thus far -“None of this has been fully addressed to our satisfaction.”
Sepulis asked whether O’Krafka had obtained township approval before constructing the lane.
Paul O’Krafka responded that until 2014, the township did not know it owned the property. He did, however, get permission from the individual whom the township believed was the property owner.
“Up until mid-2015, the township was telling everyone the land was owned by a private individual,” said Paul O’Krafka.
Sepulis asked who would be held liable if something happened on a driveway existing on township land.
Landry said the township would be held liable.
Paul O’Krafka stated ownership of the land was irrelevant.
Fielding said with her own property, she deals with the issue of private lanes.
“We own the lane, and we’ve been told we can not legally stop someone from using it to access their property. If it is there and they’ve been using it, they should have the right to continue using it.”
Landry clarified this proposal does not block direct access. “It is preventing them from turning easily to go down Eagle Lane – temporarily.”
Sepulis said the township owns the property, and therefore he sees no issue in allowing temporary parking. He believes working to complete construction quicker would help alleviate the long-term headache.
But going forward, he asked staff “to consider selling this piece of property to the O’Krafkas and eliminate the triangle at some point in the future.”
Bulmer compared it to allowing additional parking on the back streets of Morriston.
“I don’t see this as significantly different. I realize this is not their sole access, but it impedes their use.”
Bulmer said having worked on commercial projects and having to park some distance from sites, “construction people are fairly adaptable … and I am concerned the inconvenience we’re asking the neighbours to put up with is greater than I am comfortable approving.”
Fielding also was not ready to support the request.
“I feel it is very common on construction sites that workers meet ay certain locations to minimize the number of vehicles on site,” she said. “If this has been a traditional laneway and the township has posted no parking signs, I really don’t see a compelling argument to ease up on the bylaw.”
Mayor Dennis Lever had also visited the site, and there is the unique situation of trees growing on the road. If the road was wider, there wouldn’t be a problem, Lever said.
He added he considered a number of the items “issues between neighbours,” such as the reported damage. The mayor supported the parking because he believed it would speed up construction.
“At that time the neighbours can resolve their outstanding issues.”
The proposed resolution authorized temporary parking of a maximum of two vehicles at the location from Jan. 2 to June 30.
In a recorded 3-2 vote, council voted to approve the parking request. Voting in favour were Roth, Lever and Sepulis. Fielding and Bulmer were opposed.
