By Mark Squibb/November 18, 2021
Motion #’s 2018-222, 2020-019, and 2020-052.
They don’t look like much on paper, but collectively they form part of the nucleus of a battle that has been raging the better part of 12 years in Witless Bay.
Councilor Ralph Carey walked council through the motions one by one, last week, starting, as is often the best place to start, at the beginning, or at least sort of.
Carey said Motion 2018-222, which was passed by the previous council on September 11, 2018, had amended the Town’s engineering and design standards to give council discretion over the standards set for all roads and public rights-of-way in Witless Bay.
It had followed on an earlier council decision regarding road standards that allowed for approval of an access road for a development at 241A Gallows Cove Road.
At the time, that decision was appealed by Jack Foley, who was represented by resident Noel O’ Dea, a prominent landowner on Gallows Cove Road, who has led an effort to oppose any development on back of Mullowney’s Lane for more than a decade.
At the appeal, the Eastern Regional Appeal Board ruled it did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter.
Carey said the current request to rescind those earlier motions came at the behest of a resident, who remained unnamed throughout the meeting.
“We’ve been requested, and I wasn’t aware of this particular motion, although I may have been at the time in 2018, but it gives tremendous power to a council to use discretion when we’re talking about roads and engineering standards,” said Carey. “We’re talking about safety of the general public, so I don’t think the safety of the general public needs to be in the hands of a few, I think it needs to be in the hands of many, so for that reason I’m willing to make the motion to rescind that motion.”
The motion, meanwhile, appears to go against advice from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Krista Lynn Howell, who advised some residents of Witless Bay in September that the provincial government would not intervene and call a halt to a proposed road off Mullowney’s Lane that the protesters opposed. “It is the responsibility of Council to bring the road up to the standard set in the Town’s municipal plan and development regulations, and to maintain the road,” Howell wrote in a statement. “Under legislation, the Town Council has the authority to make decisions on municipal roads.”
Lorna Yard, who was among the group protesting the extension on Mullowney’s Lane, and has since been elected to council, seconded Carey’s motion to rescind Motion 2018-222. It passed unanimously.
Next on the chopping block were motions 2020-019 and 2020-052, which Carey said related to a similar matter.
Those motions were made by the previous council to overturn a decision made by the council previous to them, when Carey last served, to reserve 99 hectares of land in the Mullowney’s Lane area from development. That was back in 2014.
The effect of Carey’s new motions would be to overturn the decisions of the last council so that the 99-hectare Crown Land Reserve would be back in place, all but putting the kibosh on any building of houses or roads off Mullowney’s Lane, as the reserve would make islands out of any privately-owned lots in the area and prevent them from connecting to the road.
Carey said that while he is well versed in the matter, he knew that other councilors wished for more information and time before making a final decision on the new motions, so he moved to defer both for now.
Yard seconded that motion.
A final motion that the new council rescinded last week was motion 2021-267, which allowed a resident earlier this year to refer to Service NL for final approval regarding a septic system for a private lot off Mullowney’s Lane. Carey argued the Town should have final say, not Service NL.
“So, right now, we, as a council, have no authority to approve a septic system, we have no jurisdiction over septic systems,” he said.
Carey’s new motion, to rescind that one, was seconded by Deputy Mayor Yard and carried unanimously.
