Options, voting procedure, process and outcome
The issue of parking at the Norway Park Landing and Parkette has consumed a tremendous amount of Township time over the past few years. In 2010, in response to requests from a small group of approx. 17 property owners on Bigwin and adjacent islands, a Committee was struck to investigate the situation.
This topic re-opened with a comprehensive look at the current Parks By-Law – a document that needed to be streamlined and in some places altered. At the meeting on August 23, Council was presented with a report from Staff, and 5 possible ‘options.’
Option One: Status quo. Never mind Norway Point... status quo keeps us on the current by-law, the one that allows only 3 hour docking and parking at Dorset, Dwight, Baysville – all places where we are trying to attract visitors and encourage them to stay a while in the communities. 3 hours won’t allow that. Status quo also speaks to no snowmobiles or atv’s in the parks – which, in winter, when these are frequently major access points for the use of the lake, is not what we are trying to encourage either. There are other issues, but those would be among the front runners.
Option Two: all parks Day Use only between sunrise and sunset, including Norway Point, Rabbits Bay and Camp Lake. The problem with this is that Camp Lake is a unique access point. It was created by the MNR to be a landing and access point, with parking, for the water access lots the MNR created and sold along this remote lake. There are no marinas, no other launch sites, no facilities up there in that northern corner of the Township. Councillors Burgess and Baker argue that Camp Lake needs to be on its own schedule, because of this, and I agree.
Option Three: All Parks day use only, sunrise to sunset, with the exception of Rabbits Bay and Camp Lake, with 72 hour Parking, and Norway Point, with 72 hour in the larger of the two parking areas and 72 hour docking included.
I am unable to support 72 hour parking on the main portion of this Park. We underwent an exhaustive process in last term of Council, a process initiated because there were identified problems with the docking and parking on the site. The Islanders’ Group in fact were the ones who brought the issue to Council in the first place.
This site is well used by the Public. It is one of the few accesses to the Lake for people who do not own waterfront property to come, launch their boat and spend a day on the lake. It is well used by fishermen, year round as well. Contractors utilize this launch area – as they do many of our access points and are therefore present with often large vehicles. I feel strongly that the larger parking area needs to be maintained for the Public – that there should not be long term parking on that region.
The fact that we are told there are currently less vehicles and boats in the Park is anecdotal – we know that several of the residents have taken advantage of the offer made by Bigwin Island Golf Club. Others are parking, 72 hours only then moving their vehicles (which is fine, if tedious), and others have sought other options. Opening up the larger parking area for 72 hour parking would potentially encourage many of those who have relocated to consider returning, getting us right back to the problem that took up so much time last term.
It would not ensure that there was parking available for Islanders when they arrived, nor would it ensure that there would be spaces available for the public coming to launch boats for the day. We have had one proposal in front of Council to secure a mainland access point for one of the Islands other than Bigwin – which would be a preferential route for those concerned, although we concede there is an expense attached.
72 hour parking is contentious to enforce. Councillor Burgess made this point very strongly. Staff reported that they are past this Park three times a week normally, but they conceded that to know if the boats had been moved they were utilizing duct tape on the knots, and initialling it... To me, this is a waste of staff time and resources. I agree that 72 hour parking is difficult to enforce – and I agree that simply shifting a vehicle a few feet and re-parking constitutes a ‘re-setting’ of the clock. That to me is much like full time parking, and I would prefer it be called that.
That said, trying to find some middle ground, I brought an Amendment forward, to move the 72 hour parking zone onto the smaller of the two parking lots. My reasoning was this: there are a very small number of vehicles that are identified as wanting the long term parking. As the Mayor pointed out, the Municipality should not be writing by-laws for small interest groups: a group of 17 – 20 people; or at Rabbit’s Bay, about 10 people, would both qualify as small interest groups when compared to the interest of the greater public. I thought that offering a small parking lot for those who will be away from the Park for several days, hopefully enjoying their Island properties, would keep the main area clear for Day Use by the Public. I must repeat, it is not only the people who may come to picnic or swim in the Parkette that I am thinking about but those who come to spend the day on the lake – they require room to access the launch ramp, places to park cars and trailers. Those who are not in the Park on a daily activity should not be taking up space that could be utilized by the public, so moving them into the smaller parking lot, a little farther away, made sense to me.
While Councillors Ross and Burgess supported this amendment, it did not receive support from Council, and came off the table.
Councillor LaCroix brought an amendment to clarify the times to something less ‘changeable’ than sunrise to sunset. Staff made the comment that fishermen like to make an early start, and suggested a 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. time frame. This made sense to me, and I supported this. Sunset is a very liquid time up here – in the winter, it can be quite early, and there are many members of the public who use Norway Point to access fishing huts and snowmobile trails. Returning from a day out on the lake by boat may also entail arriving after sunset.
Councillor Burgess brought an amendment that Camp Lake be moved to its own Schedule in the By-Law, and that 72 hour parking continue on that site. As I have said, Camp Lake, to me, is a different situation. The land was given by the MNR specifically to be a landing/parking area for the water access cottages the MNR was offering on this more remote lake. There are no marinas, or alternate launch areas. I supported removing the Camp Lake landing from this option, and keeping it on its own separate Schedule in the Parks By-Law.
Rabbit’s Bay, regrettably, is also a congested area. The number of vehicles and boats left upturned on the shore are causing damage to the work done by the Andrew Daniels Fish Stewardship Program to restore this high level fish habitat stream. More money is going to need to be spent by the ADFSP to make repairs. The area is becoming overly crowded, and difficult for the general public to use. While building roads in to the mainland water-access lots entails high costs, there are still options for these people. Further, allowing parking/docking at Rabbits Bay and not at Norway Point would be unfair – by moving both these landings/access/parks into the same schedule as the rest of the parks on the Lake of Bays ensures that Council is not favouring one small interest group over another. In the past, I recall Township removing some of the boats from this site – I agree with Councillor LaCroix that it is just a matter of time before there are the same issues on this location, and I supported the amendment to move both Norway and Rabbit’s Bay into Day Use only.
Option Four: This was the same as Option Three, with the addition of paid permit parking.
The option to offer purchased permits was addressed at great length through the last term of Council and the Norway Point advisory committee. We spent a lot of time on this matter, took legal council, and determined that permits were not the direction that Council wanted to take. Since any permit must be available first-come first-served to all the public, it would not address the underpinning concern of the Island residents, that they be assured of preferential parking spaces. I did not support permitted parking at that time, and I do not support it now.
Option Five: This entailed severing part or all of the parking area adjacent to the docks and launch area, and offering it for sale.
The option to sever and sell land at Norway Park is contrary to our Official Plan, and the District Plan – it is not recommended to be selling public lands that access the water. Thinking long term, there is less and less access to our lakes – and more and more people who do not own lakefront property who rely on these public places. Council has a duty to protect our parkland and access points. I cannot support that option. I will not support the severing and selling of our public accesses and designated Parklands.
Listening to the comments from around the table, it was apparent that there was a lot of support for the Day Use only option. When Council took a short break, I did ask the Mayor if it might be possible to bring a reconsideration (I was still harbouring a faint hope that 72 hour parking in the small parking lot might be a compromise) but was told no, we were simply voting on the Options as presented and amended. That’s fair – the option had been tabled and defeated...
Which is how we have arrived at the present position of Council. Camp Lake is on its own Schedule; The rest of our Parks are Day Use only, from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.
