River Access Parking System and Mitigation Plan 2021

We agree with WillowPaxton, the residents having to pay to park near our homes while tourists park for free is unacceptable. Permits should be free to every vehicle registered to the homes along with occasional guest permits. We have already taken measures like paving our driveway to avoid people “not realizing” that it was a driveway and blocking it to load canoes.

Our main concerns:
• The parking lot at the portage should be the loading zone and short-term parking and the long-term parking be at Syl Apps.

• What happens if we have company over? My mom is currently getting around with a walker and now she won’t be able to park in front of my home when she visits.

• How does this prevent people from loading their canoes on the boulevard? This may limit the use of the space but unless by-law is sitting there all day it will not rectify the problem.

• “Permits are only issued to applicants who do not, at the County’s discretion, have adequate off-street parking spaces for vehicles registered to their property, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a need for the permit” We have a driveway, however, we park trailers in this space, and we park our vehicles in front of our house and let the kids play in the driveway as it gets busy by our place and this is a safer space for them. How will discretion be decided who gets a permit and not? Especially based on this plan, no one else would be parking out front of our place.

• Are there specific hours/days where the permits are valid? Is this year around? Not sure what the $120 annually is for as that would equal 8 months)

• If the permit parking is being implemented, it inconveniences the residents 7 days a week instead of just the weekends when the canoeing traffic occurs. We have learned to adjust our parking and where our kids play. The kids are not typically allowed to play out on the sidewalks out front on the weekends as it is too busy with all the in and out of cars. During the week though it is just the residents, and the area is much safer.

I live on walnut st with no driveway. How is it fair that on top of my taxes I now have to pay to park infront of my own home. If I want to have my mom pop over for a coffee, she will have to pay to park to come into my home? Is the county going to assist those who have older homes with no driveways add a driveway? This is not fair at all. Residents who are affected by this shouldn’t have to pay for the tourism this town brings in. I hope residents get a permit for each vehicle they own plus a guest permit.

Removed by moderator.

Monday May 10, 2021
Let me be very clear; I am entirely opposed to such a parking arrangement that totally ignores the citizen's longtime residence on the streets designated for Bean Park. Never in our short history, in my recollection has there been one single day/occasion where the streets designated were filled by any visitor to Park cars for Bean Park. It certainly appears that the peaceful enjoyment to our residential area of more that 7o years is being irrevocably changed by politicians to permanently destroy this quiet neighborhood and making the residents, friends and relatives pay to park in front of our own homes.
I think it is absolutely disgusting that we are being treated with absolutely no consideration to disrupt our peaceful neighborhood and to add insult and injury to the process make our friends and more importantly our immediate family members pay permits to park in front of our home while visiting us their parents and grandparents. On top of that Ball Street from Race St. to Spencer St. has no sidewalks and is narrow to boot. Vehicles already speed in this area, patrols have all but vanished since the new OPP station is active.
My question who benefits monetarily from this project. Certainly not the residents who will have to endure this travesty on our peaceful residences and pay to park on the street that we already pay taxes on.
Many people have remarked on how Paris is and has changed over the past 5 years and not for the better. All the charm that we sought away from big city lifestyle is being demolished at an alarming rate. Movement North/South in PARIS is now a nightmare for travel. The traffic lights do not reflect flow at the different hours of use and hence create jams of cars at intersections especially downtown. The second light (NEW) past Sobey's does nothing for N/S flow except line cars up back as far as Sobey's.
Paris does not have the infrastructure to support all this growth. Every residence in this town has on average two vehicles, and many do not have the luxury of a driveway. Also it has been the local residents that have had to clean up the trash left by the irresponsible day visitors.
One absolute requirement is to immediately reduce speed limits in all residential areas to 40km. (NOTE: many cities I.E. Hamilton have done so years ago and their city streets are much wider and wider sidewalks than in Paris. Residential Safety is being ignored!!!!
Ball Street was not busy at all when we came here, now it is a main alternate route to downtown because of the huge housing projects off Power Line road and that will most certainly get much worse. Children, Adults Young and Old walk/jog every day on Ball street for their health and to see their neighbors. Our Councilors would not appear to be concerned with this neighborhood to allow this proposal. Suffice to say that a private expanding business should not and cannot put the expenses of expansion on the shoulders of Paris citizens to bear those costs or to diminish the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. Buy some river frontage out of the city core, develop it to a park and lease to the outfitters who are the ones making the money. Do not penalize the residents. Oh yes, no mention that the home owner would be paying $120.00/yr for one spot if available>Hmmmm!!!
BWB

I am begging you to reconsider charging residents to park at their own homes in the area of Penmans Dam. You are forcing the residents to pay for a problem that they didn’t even create. Paris is a wonderful town and it’s great that tourists enjoy visiting but I don’t believe this is the correct solution. Please consider giving residents parking passes for every insured vehicle registered to the address as well as one additional guest pass for family or service calls to the home.

As long time residents that are directly affected by the Pemans Dam River Access site we were shocked to find out about the recommendations to have to pay to park at our own residence.
We are well aware of the growing number of tourists and visitors that come to enjoy the river. Over the years we have put up with requests to use our phone, washroom, water, domestic visitor disturbances, visitors using the parking lot as a change room, garbage thrown on our sidewalk and lawn, and the seasonal day to day issue of going out for groceries etc. and coming back to find out parking spaces gone. We understand the growing popularity of the river and have accepted these difficulties...without complaint.
A no parking zone around this area except by permit is a great idea, but to make residents pay is a slap in the face. Then to add that, at the County's discretion, you may not even be able to purchase a permit if the County deems that you have suitable parking on the property, adds further insult. Years ago we utilized a portion of our property to add some parking to deal with this seasonal parking problem. Now we may not even be able to obtain a permit even though we don't have enough property space for all our fully insured and "licenced to the residence" family vehicles.
Residents should be issued free permits for all licenced vehicles and one free visitor parking permit. There is no reasonable excuse to charge residents to park at their own residence. We have put up with all the inconveniences over the years and should be given some respect. After all, the residents are not the problem...the visitors are.

These proposed measures are only going to strengthen the 'US vs THEM' animosity that has been simmering for the last few years between residents and tourists. We, as residents, are so proud of our beautiful town. We would like nothing more than to see tourists experience the beauty and culture of our lovely area.
The ability to happily welcome visitors to our town becomes impossible when the economic development team and the council consistently initiate measures that penalize residents.
Forcing residents to pay for parking on the streets where they are taxpayers is a penalty. Not pairing this cost plan with any type of pay structure for tourists shows clearly where the Brant Council and staff feel the financial and lifestyle burden should lie.
As several of my neighbours have mentioned already, we have collectively never noticed a parking issue from river tourism on Elm st. So, now we are to be penalized and inconvenienced for a problem that did not exist on our street.

Further, William street does not appear to be part of this plan. With William street being only a few houses away from the planned permitted area, why would people not simply park for free and without limits on William street? As anyone who lives in this area knows, the traffic on William street is an overwhelming and dangerous problem. So, having lanes clogged up significantly by those now not parking on Elm street would create significant and treacherous conditions on William Street.

The cost of the permits is designated as being necessary to fund the enforcement of this project. Before any of these measures are passed, however, I think a detailed enforcement plan needs to be shared with residents. As we are all very aware, the by-law enforcement of this county is severely overwhelmed. This is a pre-covid problem, further exacerbated by the pandemic of course. The by-law department is small, understaffed and constantly overworked. We all know this because for years the lack of any enforcement against illegal parking downtown, on residents lawns, overnight and so on has gone unchecked except for rare occasions. If the county has not released a detailed plan about the expansion of the by-law enforcement division or other measures to actively and effectively enforce the new measures, then the residents will be the only ones to be ever fined or penalized. The tourists are not parked in any of these locations for long enough to feel the sting of rare or 'complaint-only' driven enforcement.

The biggest problem of all, seen by residents who are consistently in view of the premises being discussed, are the canoe/rafting outfitters. They have consistently shown that they do not care about your signage, permits, rules or residents. They park their large trailers all over the grasses, embankments, in front of the NO PARKING signs, and on residents' lawns to conduct their businesses. They do this because they are as aware as well as we are of the total lack of enforcement carried out. Last year, while Elm street was under construction, the teens driving the canoe-laden trailers drove around the "Road Closed" signs multiple times daily, driving onto lawns and the embankment to skirt around the large construction hole at the end of Elm street. Was there ever, even one ticket given out to any of the outfitters last year for such dangerous and illegal driving? Their continued use of this tactic all through the season implies to me that there was not.

So, again, I will say that without a proper enforcement plan, which we have been told we will be funding, the penalty lies entirely on the side of residents, with tourists and outfitters benefitting greatly.

Finally I would like to point out, as a person whose house overlooks Syl Apps Arena, that the parking lot there is never full. It is an established and ready parking lot that is a 2 minute walk to the Penman's Dam launch area. In the 6 years that I have lived in this house I have never seen that lot overflow. Especially not with most of the baseball games having been moved to the newer Lions' Park facilities. It is also the designated Public washroom access point for Dam Launch users. The idea that any plan for the future of parking and public river engagement would not incorporate the full use of this facility, prior to drastic alternative measures, is a waste of taxpayer money and everyone's time and effort. The only obstacle to the use of Syl Apps is the lack of safe crossing measures across William street and proper signage. There is no plan under which a crosswalk and sign isn't the cheapest, most effective model for better parking structure at the Penman's Dam location. Especially, in the short-term such as this plan has been titled.

As a resident of Glen Morris for 20 plus years on Forbes Street I have concerns with over capacity of our community as well as the Natural Surroundings. (ie what is a healthy non damaging capacity for the river? I realize that the population in the surrounding areas has increased dramatically, and that tourism for Brant County has been pushed for many years. We have tried to work with the County on these issues for many years, with small changes being made but the County has not taken the big steps needed to tackle these growing problems/concerns head on. I personally have no issues with the bike and hiking trail but when you also have a canoe launch things get out of hand. There is simple too many people for our small community to handle. I suggest that when the lot is full, the lot is full. On another note I don't believe that tax paying residents should have to spend their summers with a canoe loading/unloadiing zone In front of their house and all the issues that go along with that. I agree hardily with ldegroote "If Brant County chooses to promote the use of the Grand River to tourists why don't they procure some waterfront land away from residential areas and create proper parking.
The County's proposed no stopping zones in Glen Morris will further conflict with the communities use of the Glen Morris School, Centennial Hall, Glen Morris United Church &Hall and the County's Library. Paying for resident parking permits seems to penalize the residents who live in these areas. I also strongly believe that no residents are going to take advantage of this system.

I live in Glen Morris at the corner of Forbes St. and East River rd.
The increased traffic on weekends here was beyond ridiculous last year and something needs to be done. However I don't think it is right to ask residents to pay for street parking because non-residents are overwhelming our small town. How many permits would be issued? Could the outfitters buy several and give them to their customers causing the exact same problem as last year?
The propose Mitigation Plan for 2021 has a few other flaws;
Glen Morris Public School is on Glen Morris rd. east and only has parking for staff, suggesting no stopping on both sides of this road has clearly not taken the school into consideration.
Glen Morris United Church also relies on street parking and no stopping on East River road would take this away.
If Brant County chooses to promote the use of the Grand River to tourists why don't they procure some waterfront land away from residential areas and create proper parking.

We often use the trail and river access point in Glen Morris and Paris, and as visitors and not residents, our concern lies with having a place to park our vehicles when using the natural resources. In response to kmurrayhopf's comment about the loading/unloading/emergency access located at the bottom of Forbes St: we were there a couple weeks ago and during the 20 minutes it took us to pull our boats out of the water and load them into our vehicle, a resident of the street appeared to be ignoring the loading/unloading signage to wash down his riding mower and push mower right in the emergency access area. If the county is going to move ahead with further parking restrictions, they should be followed by everyone involved, residents and visitors.

Regarding the parking restrictions proposed for Glen Morris related to the Eric Tomlinson river access. The Glen Morris United Church is located at 453 East River Road. The proposed parking and no stopping restrictions on the East side of East River Road are not acceptable as church members use this area for parking during Sunday morning services as well as for meetings and special events such as weddings and funerals. Parking permits are not feasible for church attendees. The East side of East River Road has a wide paved shoulder that has been used for parking by church goers for years. The Church owns a small parking lot on Dunbar street but street parking is also necessary for the nu,ber of people that attend church services and events. The majority of church attendees are not within walking distace of the church.

Living on the narrow, dead end Forbes Street in Glen Morris, we are directly across from the parking lot for a rail trail, river access and in front of our property, a loading/unloading area. (although it says no parking and also has an emergency entrance to trail which is completely ignored) . It has become a nightmare to live here - weekends from May to November are a circus. We agree with the Bean Park resident - when the parking lot is full, it is FULL. No loading/unloading anywhere else. If permits are necessary, they are free to residents. Covid seems to be the excuse for the high numbers but this problem has been growing yearly and in Glen Morris, it is out of control. We are 42 year residents and have been in favour of the rail trail and parking lot created (and now enlarged in November) but the onslaught of visitors is disturbing. We have tried to work with county staff for years but it is time to make some big decisions to make this street/community livable.

Having residents pay to park a car on the very street that they live and pay taxes for is not a correct approach. I can go along with most of the proposal but to not have parking outside my home for visitors or service personnel is not acceptable. I have lived on the street for many years and believe a balance can be met without the cash grab from local residents ( now or in the future). Keep the signage that rotates parking sides bi monthly the same and have clear signs to direct to appropriate parking. If you want to have street parking passes enforced then each household should be given a resident parking pass for free. Let’s not turn tourism into a negative for people who live here all year round.

The concept of residents having to pay to park at or near their homes while tourists and customers of local outfitters park for free is simply unacceptable. If permit parking is to be instituted, then residents should receive one free permit for each vehicle registered to the local address. Alternating side of the street parking is also far more equitable than simply choosing one side only. In both cases, the bylaws would need to be enforced and particularly on visitors who violate the rules. Those who visit to use the river facilities must respect the parking and other conditions, and issuing warnings instead of tickets is not going to enforce that.
The issue seems to be that the facilities provided by the County to facilitate various outfitters as well as individuals are inadequate. Judging by the number of people and vehicles using the river system, it is the outfitters who are growing their businesses and expecting the County via its tourism and recreation departments to accommodate that growth but they are not the ones making the investments. Green space and park area should not be turned into parking facilities to accommodate those tourist/visitors at the expense of local residents.
The parking at the river landings and launch points should be limited to 30-minutes, with signage to indicate where long-term parking can be found. Nearby community centers like Syl Apps to the Penman's Dam area can provide parking and proper washroom facilities. If the County is truly serious about developing the river attractions further, then serious attention needs to be given to these concerns and resources committed. At the same time, serious consideration of residential neighbourhoods surrounding the facilities must be provided. Lip service, and "bigger picture" answers don't cut it. Local residents who live and pay taxes should have precedence over tourists who spend a day or two in our community.

2020 was a very busy year for river access and throughout the summer as a resident of Elm st, I saw zero parking issues requiring "mitigation " unless you intend to "mitigate" the use of street parking by locals, who pay taxes and currently utilize the existing street parking without issue.

I find it interesting that the letter we received in the mail did not mention the fact that residents will be charged $15/month ($120/year) to have a permit to park on the street. I don't believe that there is anywhere else in town where residents have to PAY to park on their street. If the parking is actually "to the detriment of local residents" as the letter states, how is charging $15/month any less detrimental? With no guarantee of a spot even? I also find it interesting that the plan is to enforce permit parking from May 1st to October 1st (6 months) but locals will need to pay for 8 months ($120/15 = 8). If the intention is actually to make the parking issue better for residents (like the letter implies) should residents not have FREE permits available to them?

For the Penmans dam access, could we please promote use of the Syl Apps lot. If we could finally get a safe and proper crosswalk at Elm st, (which numerous locals have requested) it would be a very simple solution. The existing lot (by the dam) could be 15 min limits on weekends for loading/offloading.

Regarding Bean Park canoe launch and parking: I suggest it be on a first come first served to the assigned 28 space parking lot, when the parking lot is full IT IS FULL. End of. As for on the street parking, again, first come first finds a spot on the street. I live on Ball Street and many homes have three or four vehicles at their residence and depend upon parking on their street and share the street with their neighbours. It is essential when one plans to invite guests over, that one ensures there are enough amenities for the invited guests. As home owners and tax payers in Paris, I think someone else’s inconvenience does not become my inconvenience. I look forward to the conversation.

I agree with Sandy about continuing to alternate sides bi monthly , and to be fair to existing residents, they should be given at least 1 permit per vehicle as well as some additional ones to allow for occasional guests. There is little chance that local residents would be abusing this privilege.

I would suggest keeping the 2 week (bi-monthly) rotation of parking on opposite sides of the street in the areas where local residents must obtain a permit. I currently have a neighbor across the street continually parking on street. It would mean their very large truck will always be in front of my house, never on their side. Please keep the rotation system going even with the permits.
Also what do I do if I am having an event with more people than can park in my driveway if they can't park on my street without a permit?