Car­bon­ear res­i­dent calls for coun­cil in­ves­ti­ga­tion

The Compass - - OPINION -

I would like to thank ev­ery­one who has con­grat­u­lated me on get­ting my per­mit to build our home on the hill.

I’m not the one build­ing there, it’s some other lucky peo­ple. I would like to con­grat­u­late them on get­ting their per­mit.

They were granted their per­mit from the town, be­cause coun­cil said they abided by all the rules and reg­u­la­tions. I would like to know how they missed the rule that states: new de­vel­op­ment shall meet site de­sign stan­dards and re­quire­ments set out in the town’s De­vel­op­ment Reg­u­la­tions, in or­der to safe­guard and im­prove the road sys­tem of the com­mu­nity, and to pro­vide easy ac­cess for fire pro­tec­tion and mu­nic­i­pal ser­vices. New de­vel­op­ment, shall, wher­ever pos­si­ble, con­trib­ute to shorten or re­duce ex­ist­ing dead-end roads.

This was one of the rea­sons we did not get our build­ing per­mit and when they could not stop us that way the coun­cil took no name road off the town’s map when we went to supreme court.

The supreme court judge told us the town can re­move roads or put roads in when­ever they want to, all they must have is a majority vote. When you go to a gen­eral meet­ing per­mits are voted on by num­bers not what or who or where the per­mit is for. Why is it not to­tally open? This seems very se­cre­tive to me. There are too many se­crets, some­one with au­thor­ity from the provin­cial gov­ern­ment should come in and do an in­ter­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion on the way this town is be­ing gov­erned.

— De­bra Brad­bury writes from Car­bon­ear

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.