PUSLINCH – Council here amended the township’s parking bylaw at a June 16 meeting to address parking concerns of residents living on a section of Sideroad 10 North.
The area has been frequented by members of the Guelph Hiking Club during the pandemic, as the entrance to the Speed River Trail is located near the south-eastern limit of Sideroad 10 North.
At a previous meeting, council was presented with three options on how to better manage parking in the area. Council chose to immediately implement what was referred to as “option two” while they had endorsed “option three” which would be explored further at a later date.
On June 16, council officially amended the township’s parking bylaw in accordance with “option two” and will install signs in accordance with this option. Council also directed staff to report back on costs and details on a timeline for the possible future implementation of “option three.”
“Option two” includes establishing “No Parking at Any Time” restrictions on Sideroad 10 North from the Whitelaw Road and Niska Road intersection to a point 200 meters on both sides of the road. The bylaw amendment permits parking on both sides of the road for approximately 50 meters at the south-eastern limit of Sideroad 10 North and allows for parking for approximately 10 vehicles.
Council had endorsed “option three” at the previous meeting and directed staff to come back and present next steps for implementing this option. “Option three” includes opening an unopened portion of the Sideroad 10 North road allowance from the south-eastern limit to a point approximately 165 meters south-east to permit additional parking on one side of the road.
If “option three” were to be implemented, the parking prohibition suggested in option two would be moved 50 metres up, so parking is moved further away from the residential properties, and then permitted for the stretch where approximately 30 cars could park on one side of the road.
Although “option three” had been endorsed at a previous meeting, Mayor James Seeley had suggested implementing it as a graduated process, or perhaps not moving forward with the third option at all if it were to be deemed unnecessary. Seeley had concerns that the township may be doing too much on a problem that he said is likely to alleviate itself as the pandemic comes to a close.
Seeley said he believes that use of the nearby trail will drop to historically lower, pre-pandemic levels as vaccinations continue. He said most of the complaints that have been received have been since the pandemic began, when use of the trail skyrocketed.
Phased approached
“I thought that the last time we discussed this, we were going to do a phased-in approach,” Seeley said.
“My understanding was that we were going to install the new “No Parking” restrictions on the existing road allowance, and as our vaccination percentages trended upward, we would monitor the situation to see if there was a true necessity to opening this road allowance.”
Seeley suggested the township wait and see how “option two” works out for residents in the area, and if there are still concerns, then moving forward with “option three.”
Seeley was concerned about the township potentially spending close to $10,000 when “option two” may be sufficient to fix the parking situation on its own.
Councillors Matthew Bulmer, Sara Bailey, and Jessica Goyda agreed with Seeley.
“We now know what the costs are, and we have more information than we did last time on option three,” said Bulmer.
“We could just pause and wait to see how option two works out, knowing we have a third option to proceed if it’s not sufficient.”
Councillor John Sepulis disagreed with the idea of a phased-in approach and wanted to move forward with “option three” as soon as possible. He said he doesn’t see the parking situation improving with “option two” on its own.
“I have a concern with the staged implementation plan,” Sepulis said.
“COVID’s likely not going to go away very soon and we’re going to be into the fall and winter conditions, and we can’t expect our staff start doing all this work in the middle of winter.”
Sepulis said he does not want to see the homeowners in the area suffer through another winter having unruly individuals on the road causing unnecessary hardship for them.
“I can’t see this changing anytime in the future, so I’m asking that we move forward with implementing (the third option) as soon as possible.”
Seeley responded by saying he believes the township is doing enough to support the affected homeowners by implementing “option two.”
“We are providing new tools in the toolbox to reduce the effect of people using that area because we will have it properly signed,” Seeley said.
“If it becomes a problem, there’s two avenues for individuals that live down there to call, either our bylaw and have them respond, or the OPP. What was approved last council was a phased-in approach, and I think we should really stick to that resolution.”
