I would like to comment on the article about the LOTM pedestrian safety study (The Picton Gazette-Public presented with LOTM pedestrian safety study, Feb. 3 2022) .

Firstly the study took place in late August to Labour Day when the areas busiest time is July to the middle of August. The parking ban was in effect, even though the temporary signs kept disappearing every weekend, there were less vehicles in the area.

The report states that the resort has 44 parking spaces, where are they?

Even though the site plan agreement says they are only required to have 26, is this really enough for a resort, two restaurants with patios, the rental hall on the lakeshore and the big house beside the miller house, and does the 44 include the parking beside the resort cabins?. The resort owner should have supplied their own parking to accommodate these businesses, it should not be up to the County or provincial park to supply them with customer parking.

I support the idea of one pedestrian crossing but who is going to pay for this and the recommended walkway, it should not be the county taxpayers. As for the idea of parking lanes, why go back to the way it was when the driver’s vision of both sides of the road was obstructed. After the ban drivers had a good view of pedestrians and park visitors which made the area much safer and why suggest lowering the speed limit again. It was 60 kph the whole time the school was open and no one had a problem.

Lastly as Ms. Chen stated this is a pedestrian safety study not a traffic speed or parking study and council should not act on this without a lot more public consultation. And also take into consideration that County Rd. 7 is an Arterial road which means that is a high capacity road which serves all the residences, farms, etc. from highway 33 to Prinyers Cove

Dean Eastbury

County Rd. 7