Access to the waterfront? Not everything you might think it is – even via city street road allowances.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON June 6, 2011 Finally, the Waterfront Advisory Committee has done something, and something useful we might add.

Access being a part of their operational name – it was useful to wonder just how much access the average citizen has to the lake at end of road allowances owned by the city. Easy answer to that one – city owns the road allowance so you can walk down that allowance to the lakefront – you’d think. Well not so fast.

Me and the missus was out for a walk the other evening – picked up an ice cream that we didn’t really need and now had to walk it off. Strolling along the lake front and we cane across a spot that was really lovely spot and were about to walk down to the water’s edge and the missus says we can’t go there – it’s private property. I didn’t think it was private property but the missus did and so we just gazed and walked on.

Which raised the question in my mind – where can you walk to the waters edge? The Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory Committee has asked the same question and they prevailed upon Bob Peachey, Manager of Parks and Open Spaces for some guidance. Peachey made a presentation to the Advisory group and that set three members of the committee, Graham Richards, Brian Jones and Les Armstrong, out on a field trip. Some interesting results. Do read on.

Appleby road allowance lets citizens enjoy the view.

At Appleby Line they found a nicely set bench with a good view out over the lake. A trash container and street lighting made it a safe place to relax as dusk turns to darkness on a summer evening. The trio thought some signage “Window on the Lake” that one sees along North Shore Road would have been helpful.

The Walkers line road allowance, while not quite as nice as Appleby Line is was still a place you could sit and relax.

Walkers Line road allowance gives people access to the lakes edge

When the trio got to Fruitland Road the situation wasn’t as good – and there was the suggestion that a property owner might be encroaching on the public land. Won’t know for sure until the construction is completed but right now the contractors are using the right of way to store construction material and the guard rail to be installed is sitting on the ground. No problem with that – contractors need a little leeway from time to time.

Lakeland Crescent was just as nice as Walkers and Appleby Line. But that for the trio was where the good news ended. Set out below is the map Peachey used as part of his February presentation to the Waterfront Advisory Committee showing city property between Nelson Park and Green Street.

There is a sneaky situation at the bottom of St. Paul Street where a large boulder with a street number leaves the impression it is private property. The trio points out that the “road allowance at St. Paul has been completely taken over by the home owner at the end of the street”. They go on to say that: “The home owner has installed a large rock in the very middle of the right of way which would certainly curtail the public from venturing on to what is perceived to be private property.” The missus and me certainly saw it that way when we were out on our walk.

How would you see that boulder blocking the way? Would YOU walk to the lake's edge.

We didn't, which is what the property owners wanted us to do. City is being asked to clarify the encroachment policy.

It gets even worse at Water Street. According to the trio the home owner has blocked access to the Water Street parcel from St. Paul Street. Can we expect the people responsible for Open Spaces to rectify this one? What will the city’s legal department have to say? We will keep you posted?

Market Street leaves quite a bit to be desired as well. The trio says that “the end of Market Street is not quite as bad as St. Paul but, there are no facilities pr encouragement to entice the public to this property. A city map indicated that there should be access to the Water Street parcel from the end of Market Street. This has been completely blocked by the home owners fencing.

Allview Avenue is an opportunity waiting to be developed. The installation of a couple of benches and trash containers will make this a nice spot for a rest.

End of Allview Avenue road allowance offers a great view over the lake. Time for some benches.

The road end at Stillwater Crescent is an interesting situation. The road allowance is barricaded before it turns right into North Shore – means no one can walk along to the actual waterfront.

The Road allowance at the end of King Road was an interesting one for the trio. As the trio walked down the right of way on King Road to the Bay the home owner challenged the committee as to what they were doing on his private property. The trio, Graham Richards, Brian Jones and Les Armstrong indicated they thought it was public land, a road allowance at which point, according to the trio, the home owner changed his story and said he leased the right of way from the city. The trio reports that 616 North Shore Road does indeed have a long term lease on the road allowance.” How did he get that?

Home owner at 616 North Shore Road first claims he owns the property then fesses up and says he has a long term lease.

Belhaven Crescent right of way although not marked is well known and used by local people as a link to the waterfront trail along the edge of LaSalle Park.

Powder Magazine Road has no facilities with weeds the completely cut off the view of the water.. Get benches in place before someone comes asking for a long term lease.

Other than inviting former Toronto Mayor David Crombie to a meeting at which he actually fired up the committee, this is the first really solid result to come out of the Waterfront Advisory. Let’s see what they do with the information they came back with. The least should be a report to the appropriate city council committee with some strong recommendations. Good work guys.

No more long term leases for one and as the trio suggest: “Clarify the policy on encroachment”. Do we have a council member who just might be a little out of line in terms of encroachment?

Are we looking at a situation where people who can afford waterfront property deliberately encroach on city owned road allowances while the city turns a blind eye and lets people of means take advantage of their connections at city hall?

[retweet]