Skip to main content
File #: RFD 16-064    Version: 1 Name: Parkland County Road Allowance - Twp Road 524
Type: Request For Decision Status: Carried
File created: 3/31/2016 In control: Infrastructure Services Division
On agenda: 4/12/2016 Final action: 4/12/2016
Title: Parkland County Road Allowance - Twp Road 524 Proposed Motion(s) That Administration be directed to pursue Option 1 to remove the gate and leave the road right-of-way open for public use.
Attachments: 1. 1. Gate Location, 2. 2. Approval Letter from 1977

Title

Parkland County Road Allowance - Twp Road 524

 

Proposed Motion(s)

That Administration be directed to pursue Option 1 to remove the gate and leave the road right-of-way open for public use.

 

Body

Administration Recommendation(s)

Administration supports the proposed motion.

 

Purpose

At the March 22, 2016, Council meeting, Council approved the following motion: "THAT Administration be directed to provide information pertaining to a decision of County Council to give permission to a resident to place a fence and gate across a road allowance located at Pt. NE 19 and Pt. NW 20-52-07-W5M (Township Road 524)."

 

This report is in response to that motion and Administration would like to determine the appropriate action to take regarding an existing private gate across public road right-of-way on Township Road 524, west of Highway 22.

 

Summary

A gate and fence blocking access to a public road right-of-way is located on Township Road 524, immediately west of Highway 22, as shown on Attachment 1. This portion of Township Road 524 is an undeveloped government road allowance that has a private access/driveway constructed upon it to access a privately held parcel of land. Approval for the placement of a gate and fence across the road right-of-way dates back to 1977, where a letter indicating as such is provided as Attachment 2. Administration's understanding is that a gate and fence were installed shortly after this letter was issued at a location further west than the current location. Approximately 25 years ago, the gate was moved from the original location to the present location shown on Attachment 1. There are a records of reported concerns regarding individuals attempting to gain access to Crown Lands or to the Pembina River but other than a few notes, there is very little on record as to this gate being a concern.

 

In January 2016, an adjacent land owner called Parkland County offices with a concern stemming around snowmobilers accessing the lands by driving around the gate. This concern prompted a review as to why the gate was there and what authorization existed for the gate to remain.

 

The Municipal Government Act (MGA) states the following: Section 225(1) No road in a municipality that is subject to the direction, control and management of the municipality may be closed except by bylaw.

 

Our records indicate that Township 524, west of Highway 22, has not been previously closed by bylaw. The gate in the present location is not considered to be in compliance with the MGA.

 

Administration has identified a number of options to address this concern:

 

1) Remove the gate and leave road right-of-way open for public use

2) Remove the gate and relocate (or build new) gate to landowner's approach (approximately 400m west of the current location)

3) Allow the gate to remain in place in the interim ensuring the gate remains open for public access; and follow up with a Bylaw to allow Council to consider closing the road right-of-way permanently.

 

Option 1 would resolve the conflict for access by the public and would be in compliance with the MGA. Concerns are likely to be expressed by the private land owner that has concerns with trespassing and unauthorized use or access to their lands. It would also leave the parcel without a gate or fence to enclose their lands.

 

Option 2 would resolve the conflict for access by the public and would be in compliance with the MGA. Concerns are likely to be expressed by the private land owner that has concerns with trespassing and unauthorized use or access to their lands. Some concession may be made if the gate were reconstructed at their property access.

 

Options 3 would not resolve the conflict for access by the public. This option could be in compliance with the MGA if a bylaw was passed effecting a closure of the road right-of-way. The private land owner would likely prefer this option but that would be confirmed through the formal road closure process. This option would not guarantee that trespassing and unauthorized use or access to their lands is eliminated.

 

Strategic Plan/Policy/Legal/Staff Implications

 

The current situation is not compliant with the MGA and should be addressed. If the gate is removed or relocated to private lands, the conflict with the current MGA will be addressed. If the gate is retained in its current location, the appropriate step to take would be to bring a road closure Bylaw forward for Council's consideration and potential approval. The purpose of the road closure could be for "lease" or "for sale". A lease agreement would be a temporary disposition that could be cancelled. A sale would be a permanent disposition. The road closure process would require approval from the Province as well. Road closure is not recommended by Administration as this road right-of-way provides public access to a water body (Pembina River) and Crown Land.

 

Financial Impact:

Cost:   up to $5,000 for gate removal

Source of Funding:  2016 Engineering Budget - Miscellaneous