Car­bon­ear res­i­dent not happy with town

The Compass - - OPINION -

It re­ally makes me mad and I feel like I’m be­ing bul­lied, as a tax­payer and res­i­dent of Car­bon­ear.

I re­cently went to the coun­cil of­fice to ask what the pro­ce­dure is to speak at a coun­cil meet­ing. I was told I had to sub­mit a re­quest to speak. This is what I sub­mit­ted “I would like to speak at the next coun­cil meet­ing on Nov. 17th, it is con­cern­ing ques­tions I have about the town.”

When I re­ceived the let­ter from the town ad­min­is­tra­tor on Nov. 12, I won­dered what their rea­son would be for me not be­ing able to speak at the coun­cil meet­ing. At the be­gin­ning of the let­ter it said, “The town ac­knowl­edges re­ceipt of your re­quest to speak at the next reg­u­lar coun­cil meet­ing. Coun­cil has not ap­proved your re­quest to speak.”

When I con­tin­ued read­ing I won­dered where they got this in­for­ma­tion from. At the Dec. 1 meet­ing, town ad­min­is­tra­tor Cyn­thia Davis ap­proached me with some doc­u­ments. Th­ese let­ters that she showed me were let­ters that were ad­dressed to the mayor. Did he give th­ese let­ters to the town ad­min­is­tra­tor or did she take them? At this meet­ing, Coun. David Kennedy said they need to follow the town’s rules and Mu­nic­i­pal Af­fairs’ rules to safe­guard the town and pro­tect the peo­ple.

Speak­ing at the Nov. 3 coun­cil meet­ing, Deputy Mayor Frank Butt was quoted by The Com­pass to have said, “Any­thing that peo­ple do that af­fects the safety of the res­i­dents, vis­i­tors and work­ers of Car­bon­ear, we take very se­ri­ously.” On page 11 of the Car­bon­ear mu­nic­i­pal plans 2004-2014, it 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, when­ever pos­si­ble, con­trib­ute to shorten or re­duce ex­ist­ing dead­end roads.”

In one of the doc­u­ments that I gave to the mayor I asked about th­ese two build­ing per­mits be­cause they were be­ing built on a dead-end road — Squibb’s Hill. Their rea­son was they did not build on a new street and there was al­ready build­ings on the street. Rules out­lined on page 32 of the 10-year mu­nic­i­pal plan were not fol­lowed.

Any­body that knows this area knows that our road has been there for a long time. Two build­ing per­mits in 2006 were al­lowed be­cause this road ex­isted. It was on the In­ter­net as be­ing one of the ma­jor roads and yet we were not al­lowed to build. I have been in touch with Mu­nic­i­pal Af­fairs Min­is­ter Keith Hutch­ings. He states that, “As there is no role for the Depart­ment of Mu­nic­i­pal and In­ter­gov­ern­men­tal Af­fairs in the op­er­a­tional de­ci­sions of the Town, I en­cour­age you to con­tinue your dis­cus­sion with of­fi­cials at the town in an at­tempt to re­solve the mat­ter.” Now can you un­der­stand why I feel bul­lied? — De­bra Brad­bury writes from


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.