Ongoing Battle to get Parking on Kerr Street

Residents of a Townhouse condo development at the far west end of Kerr Street are unhappy with the Town and with their developer (see links below to earlier reports).  Their homes are on Kerr Street but they are not allowed to park in front because Kerr street is designated as a future major arterial road.  (They are allowed right now but will eventually be barred).  The developer designed their houses with a rear lane and rear garages with a second parking spot in the rear.  But because of a slope they were not told about, access from the garages requires stairs and therefore is not compatible with the limitations of many of the mostly older residents.

The residents feel that the blames rests partly with the developer and partly with the Town for allowing this situation.  They believe they really need parking in front for visitors and even for resident drop off.

After some back and forth, the best solution (compromise?) is a layby or indent of the road in front (on Kerr Street) that would provide space for 4 cars.

Layby on nearby Wilkin's Gate
Layby on nearby Wilkin’s Gate

At right is a photo supplied by residents of a layby already provided on nearby Wilkin’s Gate.  The boulevard is wide enough to accommodate a layby but if the sidewalk is not moved in somewhat, the remaining boulevard (0.9m) would be narrower than ideal (1.5 to 2m).  A wide boulevard is best to accommodate snow when removed from the road.  So the optimum solution would be to move the sidewalk but that solution (Option1) would cost at least $45k whereas just adding the layby without moving the sidewalk (Option 2) would cost $23k. 

Barry Thrasher pointed out that even with a layby, “drivers may have to enter the parking spaces in a parallel parking fashion which involves stopping and backing up which is not ideal on a 4 lane arterial road.”

Council felt that the Developer should be asked to contribute although Barry Thrasher predicted the answer would be “No”.

There were two schools of thought at Council – Councillors McCarthy and Séguin wanted to “fix the problem” whereas Councillor Rowden was concerned it would set a precedent.  CAO Stephen Peacock thought that residents should be consulted to determine if the work could be categorized as a “Local Improvement”.  (This would mean residents would pay most of the cost since it would add value to their properties).  In any event, they all agreed that it was a budget issue and they wanted it to be referred to the budget setting sessions.  They agreed it should then come back to Council for a decision after the “final budget” is agreed on January 16.

Maybe they can use some of the “found money” resulting from the end of the Mortgage on Northam Park – Council did not discuss the Northam Park Report, the Q3 Financial Report nor the request for a $4.5M loan to pay for the Works Dept. building.  There was plenty of discussion on this potential $45k project and no discussion on reports about many millions.



Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lance Armstrong
6 years ago

Would their layway option not cut into the bike lanes and sidewalk? Basically disrupting other users for their own needs. Right now it doesn’t seem like a big deal because the roads sees little traffic but just wait a few years when it does.

Reply to  Lance Armstrong
6 years ago

But it is acceptable to disrupt other users, the cars for which the road was constructed, by adding bike lanes?

Lance Armstrong
Reply to  Dubious
6 years ago

The bike lanes have been there from the start they aren’t disrupting the cars any more than the cars are disrupting the bikes (currently)

6 years ago

“But because of a slope they were not told about, access from the garages requires stairs and therefore is not compatible with the limitations of many of the mostly older residents.”

The residents may be older and that is supposed to connate wisdom, where on earth was it when these people bought their houses, or were they so eager to make a killing by “buying off the plan”, that idea of a cheaper house overrode their ‘due diligence’. Quite frankly if these people want to pay for a local improvement go for it, but don’t play with my taxmoney to cover your mistaken judgement.

Gary McCourt
Reply to  ben
6 years ago