Speeding on Silverwood Drive

Wilma Kenny | Jun 14, 2017

Four delegates spoke to Council about the speed of traffic on Silverwood Drive, a rural road west of Inverary, which runs to Loughborough Lake in one direction and connects out to Perth Road in the other.

The first three speakers, Philippe Archambault, Jevon Austin and Chris Wilcock, all fathers of young children, told of the speed of traffic past their homes, particularly in the summer when the cottagers are back.  They spoke of their fears for their small children: “Ten children under ten years old living along one short strip of the road,” said Archambault, “learning to ride bicycles.”

Last September, a temporary speed hump had been installed, and the three men agreed that it had been very effective in calming traffic. However, when they asked for the bump to be reinstalled this spring, Mark Segsworth had said it had been moved to a different location: the Township has only so many speed humps, and moves them around. The residents said they would be willing to fundraise, to buy a summertime speed hump for their road , if that would help. (No one seems to know how much it would cost, and Public Works Manager Mark Segsworth had been unable to attend the meeting. However, one of the speakers noted that there had been traffic counters across the road recently.

Mayor Vandewal said that some of the other suggested solutions such as additional signage, a lowered speed limit (the current speed is 50 km/hr) or more policing (very expensive) generally have had minimum effectiveness at more than temporarily slowing traffic. Sutherland said he felt the Township should look into purchasing more of the temporary speed humps.

The fourth delegate, Kent Labbett, was opposed to a speed hump: “Why punish the innocent? Deal with the offenders: I don’t speed, but I was forced to go much below the posted limit to avoid damaging my car.” He had canvassed residents along the lakeshore, and collected 46 signatures opposing the speed hump. Both he and Councillor Sleeth spoke of children playing on the road, and Labbett complained about pets wandering in front of cars, and school busses holding traffic up. “It’s not as if we had an alternate route we could use.”

Council’s general consensus was that the issue needed further discussion, when Segsworth could be present.

Encroachment Agreement: Holiday Manor
Forbes Symon, Manager of Development Services, reviewed an application made by the proprietors of the Holiday Country Manor, Battersea, to construct an outdoor licensed patio in front of the building. Turns out there is an apparent encroachment on the road allowance; possibly the road allowance runs through the proposed patio, though no one knows for certain: none of the metal survey pegs can be located. But if it does not come beyond the current retaining wall, the seasonal patio would not interfere a planned sidewalk along the road, and there is no intent to widen the road in the foreseeable future. Staff and Development Services Committee have agreed that the best course of action would be to formally recognize the encroachment through by-law and agreement. The matter will come to Council for approval next week.

Process for Assumption of Non-Subdivision Roads
The Public Services Committee has begun a formal process for assumption of both Township owned and non-Township owned right-of-ways. The proposal listed a number of criteria that would have to be met before the Township would add a road to the approximate 800 kilometres of public roads already maintained by South Frontenac. (Estimated average cost of upkeep is $5,000 per kilometre.)
Although there was general agreement that this clarification would be a good thing, COW was divided on whether to forward it to the next Council meeting for discussion with Mark Segsworth and a decision, or to hold off until the end of summer, to allow time for consultation with the lake associations. (Sutherland was particularly in favour of waiting, Sleeth wanted to proceed.) Eventual decision was to proceed to decision at Council.

Outdoor Furnace By-law
Council discussed a proposed by-law to regulate outdoor solid fuel burning appliances (OSFBAs) which among other details, would recognize the new, much cleaner-burning versions coming onto the market, and prohibit OSFBAs in settlement areas. There was overall support for the by-law, but discussion became so convoluted that Mayor Vandewal (who said he couldn’t support the bylaw as it stood) finally asked in exasperation, “Can’t Council make a decision on its own? Do we need a public meeting on everything?” Ross countered with “Don’t we want to hear from the public any more? Isn’t it useful to have an accountable Council?”

Roberts deflected this flare-up of a long-standing irritation between mayor and councillor by recommending the draft be sent back to the development services committee, with a suggestion that they consult with a wood-burning expert. This was agreed.