Loading...
09 09 1991 Public Minutes . ' ,1'1 HB CORPORATION 01' HB TO1IB8IIIP 01' ORO SPBCIAL PUBLIC DftIHG 01' COUNCIL MONDAY. SBPTmœO I. 1111 . 8:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CllAllBDS ORB JrUNI)RBDTR ANI) SIIVBN'ft-BIGHJI DftIHG 1188-1111 COUNCIL The following members of Council were present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy Reeve David Caldwell Councillor David Burton Councillor Alastair Crawford Councillor Allan Johnson Also Present Were: Mr. Leo Longo, Mr. Fred Haughton, Mr. R.B. Watkin, Mr. Jim Cowe, Mr. Ron Sommers, Ms. Meryl Drake, Mr. John Hare, Mr. Ray G. Bowes, Mr. Ray M. Schiele, Ms. Judith Langstaffe, Mr. Ray Powell, Ms. Heidi Bryans, Mr. Almut Huber, Mr. Doug Holland, Mr. Dick Crawford, R.A. Cooksley, Mr. stephen Woodrow, Ms. Carol Apokremiotis, Mr. Randy Bowman, W. Storey, Mrs. Shirley Woodrow, Mr. Stuart Woodrow, Mr. Ron Sommers, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Swerdon, Mrs. Thelma Halfacre, Mr. Bill Eckerman, Mr. John L. Dozoksky and One Member of the Press. Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting. Reeve Robert E. Drury opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting under the Municipal Act, section 298 (1) (c), and 301 (1) (b) was being held for the following purposes: a) stopping up permanently a strip of land across the 9th Line at its intersection with Lakeshore Avenue; and, b) Stopping up for specific times and seasons the 9th Line, South of Parks ide Avenue to the Boat Launch. Before passing the proposed By-Law, Council shall hear any person who claims his lands will be prejudicially affected by the By-Law, to stop up and close as previously mentioned. section 299 (1) of the Municipal Act, states a By-Law cannot be passed if it will deprive any person of a means of ingress and egress to and from his land. This meeting relates solely to the issue of closing the 9th Line, a proposed. We would be pleased to hear from anyone whose land may b prejudicially affected. No By-Law will be passed this evening; Council will consider submissions made and enact any By-Law at a future meeting. Reeve Robert E. Drury then turned the meeting over to the Township Solicitor, Leo Longo and Fred Haughton, Public Services Administrator. Leo Longo: It is sometimes easier to define what is before Council this evening by defining what is not , . Leo Longo: Krs. Huber: Leo Longo: Mrs. Huber: Leo Longo: Fred Haughton: - 2 - before Council. What is not being considered b Council this evening is the use of the Boat Launch. What is not being considered by Counci is the opening up of a new road which will connect Lakeshore with Parkside. What is befor Council this evening is what was in the notice, and that was, closing off the 9th Line at the southerly extension of Lakeshore, closing that off permanently. The second issue is south of that area, which i the southern extension of Parkside, closing thi off, not permanently, but on the off season and during the season between certain hours. As stated, consideration was going to be given to closing off the 9th Line, access to the Boat Launch from October 16th until the following Ma 15th. During May 15th to October 15th, it woul be closed at a set hour at night, the Public Notice said 9:00 p.m. and it would open again the next morning I believe at 8:00 a.m. These are clearly, issues that could be discussed thi evening. Why a Public Meeting is required in Law, is the Province has always said to a municipality, before you go and close anything, you have to make sure that as a result of closing it, you are not adversely affecting a persons property. Once this issue is considered, Council I believ will turn the meeting more into just a Town Hal Meeting, as to any other concerns that may aris as a result of this proposal. As the Reeve indicated, the notice suggested that perhaps and entire closure along the entir width of the 9th Line would be considered; there may be an alternative that Fred Haughton will address that may provide for as good a movement as we can insure to ensure the safety issues that unfortunately arrive when you have two streets coming in at the similar intersection, but still achieve what we are looking for. Unless there are any questions as to the purpose of this evenings meeting, I propose to turn the meeting over to Fred. What is the purpose of closing it? to enlarge the parking lot? Do you want Fred Haughton will address the traffic reasons why this is proposed. As I understand it, it was principally to ensure the removal of an unsafe condition that exists when three roads are all fitting at the same intersection. I think it will especially adversely affect us going to and from our cottage and have more traffic. I would still like to know, what is the advantage of the closure? Fred will address that. Just to go over the traffic flow. Problems arise with the traffic congestion that is here now. A lot of traffic that does come down the 9th and wanting to turn left on to . . Fred Hauqhton: Mr. storey: Fred Hauqhton: Leo Lonqo: Mr. storey: Mr. Schiele: Fred Hauqhton: Heidi Bryans: Jim Cove: Fred Hauqhton: - 3 - the Lakeshore Road and/or on to Parks ide Drive; creates three conflict points there and the advantage was to try to correct some of those problems. (Fred Haughton, pointing to the map, explained problems that have occurred at these intersections.) My feeling was to try to clean up some of the problems and if there was going to be parking facilities in this area, we would try to eliminate that congestion point. The possibility was to realign it so that any traffic from Parks ide Drive wanting to access and go north on the 9th would go up and go through Part 1, (pointed to map, newly created road beside Lot 43) and then stop. Once the right-of-way is clear they may proceed (pointed to map) along the north side, what we call Part 2; a barrier would be put along side Lakeshore Road to eliminate any traffic going up onto tha road allowance or coming in this way. So if anyone wanted to go north, traffic would go up Part 1, stop and then disperse and go out. Fred Haughton, pointed to map and indicated it would eliminate the conflict point with just on stop sign. Are you putting a stop sign at the end of the new road? I personally would not put a stop sign there. Mr. Storey, are you suggesting a stop sign, south bound on the new road? Yes. will there still be parking in this section here? (pointed to map) council has advised no parking on all of Parks ide Drive on the north side, all of Parks ide from the 9th west and sections on the Lakeshore Road and no parking on the 9th up to the extension on Lakeshore Road. I am also part of Lot 1 with Mrs. Huber. My question is what is the advantage to actually closing the road, we have not seen any problems there has not been any accidents etc. I do not see any problem with the boaters coming down an using the property as it is set up right now. What I see by closing the 9th line you will onl be creating more of a problem for the residents that are in the area. Al Storey is going to be having the road right beside his property, whic he is of course upset about and we are going to be having the traffic coming right in front of our property constantly, whereas right now it i a little bit deferred. I just do not think it is a good idea at all and I do not think you have considered the benefits to the residents 0 the area. I didn't hear you Mr. Haughton, where did you say the problem was? It was an existing situation prior to anything been done. The hazard is at the intersection 0 Fred Haughton: Jim Cowe: Reeve Drury: Mrs. Huber: Jim Cowe: - 4 - Parkside, Lakeshore and the 9th line. Three years ago you stood at this same Council Chambers and said there was no hazard in your memory at this intersection. By creating this boat ramp you have created this hazard. Fred Haughton has for many many years suggested that there should be something done with this corner. I would like to be on record that I am against it and I think it will create more problems and we do not have any problems now. I was going to mail you this letter but because of the postal strike I brought it to read tonight. It has to do with the road closure an the parking facilities. I am writing this letter to formally object to the closure of the 9th Concession of Oro Township which leads directly to Lake Simcoe. As per section 298, Clause #3 of the Municipal Act, my reasons for objection are as follows: The closure of said road and creation of new road cutting across lot 44 will make two very dangerous intersections. The southwest corner of lot 44 is lined with seven foot cedar trees which would severely limit sight for on coming vehicles. The northwest corner is also a heavy foliate, creating a situation for an accident waiting to happen. The closure of the 9th will facilitate a parking lot which is an obvious illegal use. Lot number 44 in question is currently zoned Shoreline Residential. In reviewing the Official Plan of Oro Township, a parking lot is obviously not a permitted use an completely contrary to the policies of the Official Plan pertaining to Shoreline Residential. The parking lot in question has been in use for a full season. It was created after the Township of Oro passed a By-Law to widen and alter Parks ide Drive and Lakeshore Boulevard. There was no notification to the neighbourhood, contrary to section 301 of the Municipal Act. A review of the parking regulations of the Township of Oro, By-Law No. 90-39, clearly states, no person shall park a vehicle in any of the following places: (Mr. Cowe read from the By-Law and commented on same.) The Township of Oro is obviously condoning and encouraging people to break their own By-Laws. The boat ramp and parking lot issue has been on going for the past three years. All along ther has been minimal or no public input from the residents most affected. It is apparent that the Township of Oro has been manoeuvring to den any public input and have made a mockery of the Municipal and Planning Acts by expending $10,000. for legal advise to find ways around rezoning of the parking lot. This would result in an objection and a referral to an impartial OMB Hearing and weighing public input in a binding decision. There has been no intent on . . - 5 - Jim Cove: the part of the Township of Oro to make the parking lot conducive to the residential homes in the surrounding area. As it stands the parking lot now is a sterile ground with A&P type lots which is an eye soar to the neighbourhood which otherwise have maintained a great expense and effort by the residents. In closing, if this By-Law has changed to exclude the closure of the 9th Concession and thereby denying my right of an appeal to an independent body under Section 298, Clause 3,0 the Municipal Act, it will further add evidence to the fact that the Township of Oro has been manoeuvring to exclude any public input. I sen this off to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the OMB. Reeve Drury: I would just like to state for the record that the Township is going to pave that parking lot within the next two weeks. Leo Lonqo: In conversation with members of Municipal Affairs they want to hear my appeal before any part of this By-Law is passed. The gentleman stated that the Council has made mockery of the Municipal Act by not complying with section 301 when you passed the By-Law las year to include Lot 44 as part Parks ide Drive. I can advise Council that you have not made a mockery of the Municipal Act, in fact, you have complied with the Municipal Act. Section 302, specifically states that Notice under section 301 is not required in circumstances such as existed last year when you past the By-Law. Yo are allowed to widen roads if you own the property and the Municipal Act does not require notice. So with respect to notice, I can advis the Council and those Public that there has bee no breach of the Municipal Act. Jim Cove: with respect to the issue of Land Use and with respect to this evenings meeting, what you are dealing with is the permanent and temporary closing of sections of the 9th line and that Mr Reeve is entirely divorced from Zoning By-Laws and issues related to the Planning Act. It always lies in any ratepayers option if they believe a use of land is not being properly put to seek that, that use be restrained. But I ca assure the Council and those here this evening that the issues respecting Land Use are not tie into the purpose of this evenings meeting. Whe the final point suggested by the gentleman that Municipal Affairs is interested in his appeal and that no By-Law should be enacted until that has been done. I can advise Council without an hesitation, that after convening the Public Meeting tonight on the road closure, that the Municipal Act makes no provision for appeal. You are charged under the Act to hear from people as to how this affects their land and prejudicially affecting their access. The issues that where raised by the gentleman with respect, are not relevant to that issue that is before you this evening. Leo Longo: Ray Bowes: Fred Haughton: Tony Cooksley: Gentleman did not state his name: Reeve Drury: Fred Haughton: - 6 - The final point is, I don't know where he got the $10,000. figure in legal fees, but it certainly wasn't paying my firm. I live at number six Parks ide Drive. It is ver interesting what the solicitor of Oro Township says. I would hope that you would follow all the legal By-Laws, you follow the Municipal Act etc. etc. but surely there is a moral issue her involved. Council should address the concerns of the residents nearby. I would like to address your concerns with regard to the traffic going back and forth and to avoid any excessive traffic using Parkside Drive. What has been discussed in order to alleviate some of it was to stop up only half 0 the road allowance and make it one lane, that would be exit only. It would involve a stop sign being placed here (pointed to map). I thought it was an excellent idea, and it would work. Lot 13, Parks ide Drive. Actually I am in favou of what you have in mind, closing off the 9th Concession and I am wondering if everybody understands the idea you have for the barrier. (Mr. Cooksley went to the map and explained wha exactly he meant and asked if he understood correctly.) I would like to make a proposal an I though it would help Mr. storey out and all 0 us down this way, and that is to have a gate or a barricade right before Mr. storey's driveway. (Mr. Cooksley explained to those present by pointing to the map.) Al storey sent a letter representing almost everyone on Parks ide and as far as this proposa goes you might consider a temporary gate down towards the end, nine months of the year. This would cut down on the traffic etc. here. (Pointed to map) Another proposal would be to continue the cedar hedges along the shore here to provide a barrier. I personally like the idea of this northern set-up. Fred, when we were talking about the northern entrance, did you mention the signs we were talking about erecting there? I was just going to mention when you stop up something like that and put gates across, in past experience things like that become quite a nuisance. Number one, the garbage trucks have to find a place to turn around and they will us your driveway. I think you would be very unhappy with that situation. People like to drive the Lakeshore, it is a pretty drive, they come down and they look and then they turn around. To do it right you should probably construct a cul-de-sac so that you have a safe turning point in this area. Just something tha people should consider. Council has suggested that a sign stating Local Traffic Only be place prominently and at the other end of Parkside Drive also. (Fred Haughton pointed to map, indicating where proposed signs would be Fred Haughton: Mr. storey: Fred Haughton: Reeve Drury: Mr. storey: Leo Longo: Ray Powell: Reeve Drury: Ms. Bryans: Reeve Drury: John Hare: Reeve Drury: - 7 - placed.) I was just wondering, if you are going to make that blue section a one way, why can't you make the yellow section a one way? (Fred pointed to map and indicated that it woul restrict people in a certain section to go one way and they would have to go down to Memorial Park to go back up.) Mr. storey you are saying, make the yellow section one way towards the Lake? Yes. It was talked about the concept of putting a barricade along Parks ide Drive. That is something that is always open for Council to consider at a future time. It may be that with the suggested change that Council has put on th table, that is keeping north bound open, so tha when boats and trailers, once they pick up thei boat, go straight up as opposed to cutting across. Lot 7, Parks ide Drive. Is there any way you ca contain all the activity within this one area? (pointed to map indicating that perhaps all the traffic flow could go in one way by putting a barrier up by Mr. storey's lot and stopping any traffic coming down Parkside.) As Mr. Haughton has explained, putting a barrie up there is going to cause problems with garbag trucks, etc. I think making the yellow area on way and putting a strong sign up, west of the yellow on Parkside, Local Traffic Only, is a valid point, keep traffic going all that way an we are not going to restrict Lot 1, 2, and 3. What can we do for Lot 1, 2 and 3 that is going to give us more privacy? Is the parking lot bi enough so that we can put an attractive barrier cedar hedge. (Explained by pointing to map) I don't think there is, unless it is right on the property line. I feel sorry for the three lots. All the traffic that is going to come around is going t come right past their places. Right now the traffic comes down the 9th, into the parking lot, they launch their boat and then they go back. I feel sorry for the three or four peopl that are there because the value of their land is going to drop, etc. Unfortunately when people want to go fishing they want to go fishing early in the morning and I am afraid these people will not have very much privacy. They might end up with less traffic going by, because as Fred has said it is a nice area down there and people do sight see and have done so long before the boat launching facility went in there. - 8 - Gentleman did not state his name: Cars driving by, people looking at your property, this happens and they will be up ther the next few weeks looking at the trees. When you get a trailer going by with a boat on it an it is banging away, it is a lot different than person driving in a car sight seeing. Reeve Drury: The road is going to be paved so there will be no banging away and that will eliminate a lot 0 the noise. Ray Bowes: I just would like to address that about one percent of the boaters that are down there and because of the lack of controls down there that we have really suffered down in that neighbourhood this year, badly suffered down there to the point of stolen boats, burglaries, etc. My car was vandalized, my neighbours car was vandalized, and this seems to be going on a nightly basis. Fires on the boat ramp, you already know about that and I would just like t emphasize that we would hope that this gate across the end of the boat ramp would correct these problems. The police are there on a weekly basis now and we would hope that there would be some kind of By-Law passed that once you put that gate across you put some rules and regulations into effect. Leo Longo: I just take a note to what Mr. Bowes is saying and suggest that perhaps I can provide a report to Council as to the times this road is to be closed, that is off season and also during the night. Whether or not there is some By-Law tha we have the jurisdiction to pass that tells people they are trespassing and therefore you can penalize them for breach of a By-Law. I am not certain if that exists but it would strike me just from common sense that it would be a lo easier to pass such a By-Law if the road allowance were closed during those periods of time rather than the situation as it is now. Remember, municipalities only have the power that the Province gives them, but I can certainly go through the Municipal Act and see if once we close this temporarily, whether we can then have powers to say that anybody caught on there making a disturbance when it is closed is subject to a fine, etc. Randy Bowman: I would like to see a privacy fence, cedar hedge, put across the storey's property to be fair to him for noise and looks, etc. Reeve Drury: Was there not some sort of a hedge there before Mr. storey? Mr. storey: Yes there was, until you guys came in and pawed it all down. Mrs. Huber: I am concerned about our hedge. By digging up that creek and widening it, you damaged our hedge to such a great extent. I phoned Mr. Drury and he said he had experts looking into it. I went with a polaroid camera today and we took pictures. (Mrs. Huber passed the pictures around.) I will not rest until I get a - 9 - Mrs. Huber: retaining wall and the soil being replaced because the next rain, the river will wash it completely out. That cedar hedge was there twenty years ago when we bought the property. am determined to get legal help if I cannot get satisfactory replacement of the soil and a retaining wall. Carol Apokremintis: I live at the bottom of the 9th. If that yello road goes through are you going to put a stop sign? Fred Haughton: Yes, we will have to put a stop sign. Mr. Cowe: Is there going to be a stop sign right here for the traffic coming down the Lakeshore? (point t map) Fred Haughton: You probably would create more of a problem. Mrs. Huber: Are you going to do something about those big rocks at the Lakeshore? The Department of Land and Forest where very explicit that these rocks should not be removed. Fred Haughton: The rocks were removed and put back again after we put the ramp in. Mrs. Huber: They have been removed again. Fred Haughton: They where there last week when I was down there. Mrs. Huber: No, they are not at the shore where they are needed to protect the lands. Fred Haughton: That is where I was suppose to put them according to the MNR. Mr. Cowe: As you said it is a beautiful area. If you go for a drive, you can see everybody has at least five feet cedar privacy hedges in the whole area. You have taken a Shoreline Residential lot and stripped it into a basic A&P parking lot. Could you not have the decency to at leas put cedar hedges on Mr. Storey's property on th balance of the parking lot, to make it somewhat conducive to the neighbourhood. I do not think you are acting very responsible. Reeve Drury: Council may well decide to do that after tonights meeting, that is what the meeting is about. Ray Bowes: I like the idea Mr. Powell had of getting out the flow of traffic through that way and there is no mix up. The less congestion the safer it is going to be. Another consideration would be to make Parks ide one way, that way, coming out. So you would enter Parks ide by the Park and mak it one way right around and in that way the comment about emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, snow ploughs, etc. would alleviate all the problems. Fred Haughton: If you made the yellow one way, I think the concern was you would be better off to have it one way the other way. Bob Swerdon: Fred Haughton: councillor Crawford: - 10 - This is getting complicated. There is certain sacrifices that are going to have to be made no matter what the final solution is and unfortunately there are three properties there that no matter what you do, are going to be directly affected. Sometimes the most complicated approaches are simply approved because the simplest where not looked at in the first place. Mr. Haughton, could I just get your comments on a very simple idea. (Mr. Swerdon pointed to vary's places on the map, asked questions, and made comments.) Thanked Mr. Swerdon for his suggestions. I like the idea of having the 9th line open north so that when you leave the boat launch facility, make sure that an exit sign is put there so that everyone exits by the 9th line. What you want to do is cut down any intrusion from this area on Parks ide Drive. If coming into the ramp you have to come over and down a one way street in the yellow strip, make a left turn, your coming over ~nd your facing up the 9th to back in, or if you want to go in and tur in the turning circle you can. If there is a sign on Parks ide West saying Local Traffic Only that will stop the intrusion on the area that you are trying to stop. As far as the people 0 the three lots on the south side are concerned they would enter through the yellow strip and exit through the 9th. I know the area as well as anybody because I walk there two or three times a week and I have watched and thought about it and this idea of having the traffic going around in a circle is the way to go. If Parks ide Drive at the other end had a sign Loca Traffic Only, then I think the intrusion on Parks ide Drive would be minimal, if at all. As far as the problem with regards to the ditch and the erosion. That erosion problem is over and there will be no more damage. If we can agree on the hours that the boat launch facility is used, the problem I have tha if you close it too late in the morning the people down there will just raise hell to annoy you enough that you will open it twenty-four hours a day. You will have to be reasonable an open it at a reasonable time in the morning and close it at a reasonable time at night to stop the conflict. I would recommend 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and closing it in the winter time s you don't have a danger hazard with the water running over the area and having thin ice there I think if we decide to go the above route with regards to traffic flow, times, etc. I would suggest that this be done and tried for a year or two and if we find in a year or two we have to make adjustments then we will do so. I woul suggest that the By-Law be prepared accordingly from this meeting, that would close the 9th south below Lakeshore Drive and then we can ope the other road by By-Law at any time. , . - 11 - Mrs. Huber: When you pave the area, will you indicate where the parking lot is and where Parks ide Drive is; will there be a line? councillor Crawford: We may even put the cement blocks along the south side of Lakeshore Drive and then when we get an indication of the best of the traffic, there will then be lines put on, yellow lines which you do not cross and white dotted lines which you can. Certainly I would imagine Fred would be putting lines down in the parking lot to indicate the parking spaces, otherwise you will have people taking up two spaces, etc. You have a conflict with your open gate. I kno of two or three things which you have to your advantage. One is that you live a long way fro the road. The three cottages there are all ver close to the Lake. You also have privacy fences, hedges, why put another one on the othe side of the road, the one you have is the one you will be using in the next ten or fifteen years, even if you put something on the other side of the road. You can not put in ten or fifteen foot trees, they will not grow, they will die. What I would suggest is that you put a blinder on your gates so that you can not see through them, then you have complete privacy. Why build a fence along that parking area if al you need is a twelve foot area blocked off. If your home was back near the road, I could see your concern, but you must be one hundred and twenty-five to thirty feet from the road. You would get more disturbance from motor boats tha you would from the road, as far as I am concerned. Mr. Cowe: Mr. Crawford stated that the problem of erosion that the Huber's have, seemed to be solved now. Three years ago before you touched that road allowance, there was no erosion. Regarding the parking lot, I would like a proposal similar to Mr. Swerdons. You created the wonderful turning circle here, why not make use of it? Some how, have this one way going in, (pointed to map) south travel, north travel into the parking lot. Everybody who comes in must access to the Lakeshore or down Parkside, straight down to the Lake, through the turning circle, and launch their boat. When they are turning and backing up on the corner of the 9th and Parkside, that is where the hazard is. Als the hazard is of them backing up that great distance and falling into that creek. So some how going with that idea, we can reconfigure this parking lot. The dumpster will have to be moved because it appears to be in direct violation of the turning circle. with that in mind, this could be a one way street going out or coming in. , . - 12 - Councillor Crawford: I think we have to be realistic. If this is going to be open for twelve or thirteen hours a day and you have a maximum of twenty-four vehicles, that is two vehicles an hour. Two vehicles an hour is the average that they will be using it. Even if there is twenty vehicles an hour, that is thirty minutes a vehicle, ther is lots of time for interchange. Mr. Woodrow: I am not from the area but like everyone else i the Township, we all have an interest in it. Basically there is three problems here. First of all, people down Parks ide drive do not want an increase in traffic. Mr. storey does not want a road next to his home, he feels it is going to decrease the property value, which it will. People in lots 1, 2, and 3, they are going to have a different situation than they have now, there is no question about it. Anywa you try to work this, they are going to have a parking lot in front of them. Mr. Haughton sai that you can't make this into a cul-de-sac here because you don't have the area that you need. I was wondering, rather than put this driveway here or entrance (pointed to map) is to make a cul-de-sac where that is. Fill this area with trees so that takes care of Mr. storey's problem. In other words, everybody down at Parks ide Drive would have a nice cul-de-sac road, they would not have that much more traffi other than sightseers which they already have. I presume you are going to have a fence here to keep people out (pointed to map) not just a barrier. If you are going to have a gate, I would suggest that you don't have it parallel t Lakeshore Drive that it be indented a little bit. What concerns you is the people who are coming in and damaging your property. So if we can have a proper fence along here and a proper gate here, with. a key to these people and creat some type of an agreement with the Township and those three property owners, whereby you share the road allowance here. Mr. Powell: Where Parks ide Drive intersects with Lakeshore at the west end where you have your sign Local Traffic Only, will you also have a sign Boat Launch this way. councillor Crawford: Those signs are things that we are open to. What we have to do is make the facility as safe as possible, both in and out and we have to sto traffic, other than local traffic on Parks ide Drive. Reeve Drury: I think what we will do is conclude the meeting at this point and ask that those who made a new presentation this evening to give it to us in writing within five working days time so that Council can consider it. Mrs. Huber: Does that mean that I should submit in writing, my problem regarding the hedge. . . - 13 - Reeve Drury: We have heard your concern on the hedge and whe I look at the photos, I think that the stabilization program that the Road Superintendent has implemented will save the cedar trees and he assures me that any trees that have been cut or damaged were on Township property. Reeve Drury: But it is not stable the roots are exposed and the next rain or snow will wash it out further. I will get myself a lawyer, that is not good enough. I would like something done and it has to be something more than that. It has to be a retaining wall to keep the soil. When individual Council Members speak and say w mayor we can look at it, what it means is Council can not speak on behalf of another member until we have sat down jointly and made decision. I would suggest that you do follow up in writing. We will go down and look at the roots once again. We where all down one week ago and we felt they where fine the way they were, perhaps if you are on site at the time we will go over it with you at the same time. Mrs. Huber: Mr. Hauqhton: Was the general consensus that you wanted parkside Drive going west one way? Reeve Drury: Perhaps what we will do is I will go through my summary first and we will see what the consensu is. I am going to ask Mr. Woodrow, Mr. Cowe, and Mr Swerdon to put their concerns/proposal to us in writing so we can act on it. This Council believes that the hours of operation for the boat launch facility would be best from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The season will be May 16 to October 14. We will be putting up proper signs etc. We will be passing a By-Law, No Parking on the 9th Line, the Lakeshore to Kirkpatrick and Parks ide Drive to the west of Mr. storey's and the Lake side of Parks ide Drive over to the boa launching facility. The large garbage container that is in there will be replaced with a couple of small 45 gallon bins, with small lids on them. The issue of a gate, we have considered putting an automatic gate in there where people would deposit $2.00 to have the gate open during the hours of operation and when it is closed there would be no way they could get into it. Leo Longo will address the issue as to whether or not there will be charges laid for trespassing. , ..' - 14 - Mrs. Bryan: If the hours for the facility are going to be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. I feel that we will be getting all the fishermen coming at once. If i is at 8:00 a.m. it will at least diminish the people who really want to go fishing, they will find another facility to go to. If you open it at 7:00 a.m. I think you will get a line up. Mr. Cowe: The hours of operation for Oro Memorial Beach are from dusk to dawn, are they not? Well they should be the same for the boat launch facility Reeve Drury: Mr. Cowe, the Oro Memorial Park in the two summer months is open from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Cowe: There may be a safety problem with closing it a little after dust, we may have to vary the hour later on because that is a very dark corner going into the lake. Councillor Crawford: Mr. Hare: As far as closing at dark, that is fine, but yo will be opening at 4:30 in the morning when its daylight. Some of the people that come from a distance may come to the facility @ 6:00 a.m. they might wait an hour for the facility to ope but they will not wait patiently for two hours and I would be afraid that they would be such a nuisance they will drive you crazy until you open it. I believe this is a public dock for launching boats, open to the public. Other facilities like Port Credit, Orillia, there is no limit on when you can launch a boat and I don't know how you can set a time limit when you have a public dock for launching boats. Reeve Drury: There is many facilities around that have time limits, there is one in the City of Barrie. MOTION NO.1 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that we do now adjourn @ 9:40 p.m. Carried. ~RT ç {!~ CL&!!. ~