The closing of the 4th concession. Includes video footage of the Town Council Meeting where members do not tell the whole story, pictures of the bridge with cost comparison, and additional current pictures.
Closing of the 4th Concession in South Walsingham
Closing of the 4th Concession in South Walsingham
Part 1 :
On September 5th, 2012 the
Public Works & Environmental Services Department submitted a
package to council requesting that gates be installed on the common
road, Concession 4. The request was put forth in the spring of 2012
by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Their rationale was that since
they own all the property except 2 small parcels, they should
be able to put up gates and deny public access. Once gated, the
private landowners beside The Nature Conservancy of Canada would be
given a key to access their property.
It is also being said that off road vehicles use Concession 4 and can be a dumping ground for garbage and for holding outdoor illegal parties, and should be gated for this reason.
The OPP is in favour of gating the road as it has received calls about vehicles being stuck and the road has also been used to abandon stolen cars.
The Roads Division supports the gates as this would lower the maintenance cost of garbage pickup and road grading. There is a single vehicle bridge on the 4th and by closing the road the County’s liability would be reduced.
The Nature Conservancy of Canada will take care of the cost of purchasing and installing both gates and fences.
The only legal implication of this road closure would be in the event of a challenge from a member of the public.
This report was submitted by Eric D’Hondt (General Manager) and prepared by Bill Cridland (Manager of Roads).
On October 2nd, 2012 in the Council in Committee meeting, Councillor Betty Chanyi was the mover of the motion and the bylaw created. Gates were installed in the Spring of 2013 and the common road closed to the public.
Part 2 :
June 2013, a citizens group is formed
and a meeting called at a member’s house. The Roads Manager Bill
Cridland was invited and attended the meeting along with over 30
concerned citizens. Calls were made to the Ward 1 Councillor Betty
Chanyi as well and discussions took place.
At the meeting very few citizens knew of the intent to gate the road until the gates were installed.
The gates stayed closed all summer long
denying citizens access to the common road but the Road’s Division
did spend time on the road with a grader and now have it back into
proper condition.
Part 3 :
Public Works and Environmental Services
respond to the mounting public pressure and release another report on
Aug 28th 2013 to be reviewed in the Council in committee
meeting on Oct 1st, 2013.
This time the report claims that the private landowner has backed out of his agreement and is now wishing to have the gates removed and opened to public traffic. This includes the group of citizens as well.
The County solicitor states ‘the
common law right of access and passage states that municipalities
hold public roadways in trust for the general public for the purpose
of travel and accessing lands which abut such roadways. In the event
of a challenge the solicitor is uncertain of the success of a
defense.
Of course, the updated report mentions
the rutting, garbage, stuck and abandoned vehicles, and the liability
issues.
Public Works gives 4 options for council to consider to resolve these issues but recommends the 4th option.
Option 1 : Leave the gates
Option 2 : Remove gates
Option 3 : Seasonal gating
Option 4 : Move the gates past
the private landowners properties.
Option 1, if taken, states that there will be an increased cost for maintaining the unmaintained road and for litter pickup.
Liability would decrease.
The bridge structure needs work and they would recommend replacing the bridge at an estimated cost of $350,000 to $400,000. At the very least the bridge requires guardrails and a report from 2012 has this bridge in it, stating it needs the guardrails. Somehow a new deck is added to the cost of the guardrails and the overall cost would be $100,000.
The road itself would also need to be upgraded for 2000 meters at a cost of $180 per linear meter for gravel. The road cost alone would be $360,000. Bridge + Road = $710,000.
There is also the potential cost of
reimbursing the Nature Conservancy of Canada for the gates.
Part 4 :
A citizens meeting has been called for
September 25th, 2013 at a residence located on the 4th
Concession. Legal council has been retained and we are asking all
citizens to come over and have their say whether the road is reopened
to the public or closed.
Fact :
Closing of a common road is illegal.
The Road Access Act states :
When common road may be closed
(2) No person shall construct,
place or maintain a barrier or other obstacle over a common road that
as a result prevents the use of the road unless,
(a) the person has made application to
a judge for an order closing the road and has given ninety days
notice of the application to the parties and in the manner directed
by this Act and the judge has granted the application to close the
road: or
(b) the closure is of a temporary
nature for the purposes of repair or maintenance of the road.
IDEM
(4) Notice of an application to
close a common road shall be published at least once a week for four
successive weeks in a newspaper that is circulated in the area in
which the proposed road closure is located, the last
publication to be not less than ninety days before the date fixed for
the hearing of the application, and any person who uses the road is
entitled to be a party to the proceedings on the application.
The Road Access Act can be found here :
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90r34_e.htm
Opinion:
I’m not sure what else needs to be
said other than to stay on the right side of the law.
So are Eric D’Hondt, Bill Cridland and Betty Chanyi breaking the law? It would appear so.
So are Eric D’Hondt, Bill Cridland and Betty Chanyi breaking the law? It would appear so.
Offence
7. (1) Every
person who knowingly contravenes subsection 2 (1) or (2) is guilty of
an offence. R.S.O. 1990, c. R.34, s. 7 (1).
Order
to remove barrier
(2) Where
a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court may
order the person to remove the barrier or other obstacle. R.S.O.
1990, c. R.34, s. 7 (2).
Fact:
Manager of Roads, Norfolk County, Bill
Cridland is married to Wendy Cridland, Manager of the Nature
Conservancy of Canada, Norfolk Division.
Opinion:
I don’t believe that this falls under
the exact definition of ‘conflict of interest’ but assuming
that when his wife finds out that his anniversary present of the 4th
concession being closed off has been rescinded there will definitely
be a conflict in that household.
Fact or Fiction:
It’s alleged the cost to add hand
rails to the bridge is an estimated $100,000. This particular bridge
measures approximately 24 feet long by 10 feet wide.
Total bridge reconstruction costs are
estimated to be $350,000 to $450,000. Possibly this bridge is being
confused with the Tulpin Culvert Replacement, Lakeshore Road Project
C324.0032.
The Tulpin Culvert Replacement was budgetted at $50,000 for engineering and $390,000 for construction. This particular project is 120 feet long by 30 feet wide and the actual project cost was $471,000.
Considering the Tulpin Project is 5
times the length wouldn’t a more reasonable estimate come in around
$78,000 + $50,000 for engineering it at the same price? A total of
$128,000.
The December 31, 2012 Road Reconstruction Reserve Fund is holding a deficit of ($16,039,601) and is estimated to be ($30,890,456) by Demember 31, 2013.
Is the person estimating the bridge cost also in charge of the budgeting?
Maybe this is a marriage breaker so these numbers are elevated to sway councils option?
Opinion:
The 2012 Bridge review has this bridge
on it stating it requires a handrail. Was this not budgeted already
and then why was it not completed as required? Why has it been so
poorly neglected by the Roads Division that it should fall into such
disrepair? Why are there so many neglected bridges?
As this is on a back road could it not have a wooden guardrail installed at a reduced cost?
This is one of the last remaining dirt roads in the area and the few that are left should be kept open as they hold historical value. A refuge from a world of pavement. Was the Norfolk Heritage Committee consulted on this closing? Is it not in their mandate?
Even better work with the Norfolk Heritage Committee and other concerned citizens to come up with a much nicer bridge design.
The State of Ohio has a covered bridge initiative.
Would it be out of the realm of possibility to create a beautiful looking bridge on a peaceful road for the public to enjoy? Would this not also bring more tourists into the area since the Backus Woods is an attraction?
With the gating of our common roads we exclude seniors and people with disabilities from being able to use the common road and force’s them to go the long way around. They cannot possibly be expected to walk the 1000 meters to the trail head.
A private landowner was just fined $3,000 for operating an open sand pit just minutes away from the location. Could a deal not have been reached where that owner be able to provide the sand to elevate the road level in lieu of payment?
In a recent hike down the 4th
Concession I did notice something that does need to be fixed. If The
Nature Conservancy of Canada is the new ward of Norfolk’s trails,
former farms and now roads then why did I find garbage strew on that
road? It has been roughly 6 months since they installed the gates
and the estimated cost to move the gates is at $2,500 but they
couldn’t send any one from their office to pick up the litter?
 | 
|
Norfolk County should not be held
liable to The NCC for the cost of the gates as they were erected
illegally in the first place. Either The NCC or the Roads Division
needs to go and collect that garbage immediately.
The liability insurance for a Municipal
County is likely a blanket policy and the removal of a single road
would likely not change the cost.
Great article. Who knew you could just close a road for the sake of doing it or as a gift!
ReplyDelete