Seating, signage and celebrations in the works for Irish Loop

By Mark Squibb/March 3, 2022

A number of towns along the Southern Shore hope to party it up this summer— with a little help from the provincial government.

Some 181 communities across the province are recipients of the Municipal Come Home Year Celebration Grant. Applicants could apply for $2,000 to put towards community projects such as promotional materials, beautification projects, Come Home Year celebrations, and minor community upgrades.

Ferryland has been approved for a new ‘Welcome to Ferryland’ sign. Gaskiers-Point La Haye has also been approved for new welcome signs and flowers. St. Mary’s has been approved for new signage for First Falls and the ballfield, where events will be taking place, and St. Shott’s has been approved to construct an outdoor platform for musical events. Folks in Cape Broyle, meanwhile, will put the money toward the construction of a new gazebo, while Aquaforte will use the money to build a number of benches throughout the community. Petty’s Harbour-Maddox Cove has been approved to install painting areas around town.

Admiral’s Beach, Bauline, and Witless Bay have all been approved to use the money toward celebration events.

For many communities, the Come Home Year celebrations may be the first big community events to be held since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020.

“It’s definitely exciting,” said Witless Bay Mayor Trevor Croft. “The entire council is definitely looking forward to the opportunity to get out and meet people. With the COVID regulations, hopefully everything is open for that. But it feels really great to finally be able to get

Team Gushue a winner in Dunne Academy's book

Team Gushue may have placed bronze in the 2022 Winter Olympics, but they’re golden in the eyes of Dunne Academy students. Students took some time to congratulate Team Gushue last week on their Olympic success.

Bay Bulls council carries on work with Long Pond trail improvements

by Mark Squibb/March 3, 2022

Members of Bay Bulls council approved two motions in last week’s meeting that they hope will improve the future of the Long Pond walking trail

The first was to ratify an e-mail vote to buy materials for benches and garbage boxes at a cost of $976 plus HST, which was approved unanimously. The Town has partnered with Her Majesty’s Penitentiary to have the items built through its carpentry program.

Later in the meeting, council approved a change order to the walking trail project.

“The initial design was two dead end sections of trail,” said councilor Jason Sullivan. “But we’re working with everyone to make a loop around the pond. So, for anyone that’s listening, we’re trying our best to fix it up so you can walk right around the pond.”

Technically, the initial design did include a full loop around the pond.

Construction of the Long Pond trail was expected to finish in the summer of 2021, but the bids received were substantially higher than expected, and so the project had to be retendered. The initial trail design changed when the project was retendered.

It was not mentioned whether there will be any cost associated with the new change order.

Work on the design began in 2020. The trail will be a combination of compacted granular and boardwalk with a focus on accessibility.

Phase I of the project was cost shared by the federal, provincial, and municipal governments under a Municipal Capital Works program, with each government paying a third of the cost, which works out to $143,702 each for a total of $475,444 (less HST). Phase II is valued at $144,229, and of that cost, the Town has to contribute $14,422, which is 10 per cent. The rest of the cost was covered by provincial COVID Stimulus Funding.

Messy Bay Bulls resident slow to collect his stuff

By Mark Squibb/March 3, 2022

Bay Bulls council is giving a resident another month to arrange collection of his personal property from the town garage.

The town removed a number of items from a property on Track Road Extension in September following complaints about the messy property. Requests to clean up the property went unheeded.

The items have been held in storage by the Town since then, despite numerous attempts to contact the owner.

Last month, council voted to have the town lawyer draft a letter formally requesting the property owner to pick up his belongings.

At last week’s meeting, Mayor Neil O’Brien confirmed the letter had been sent by registered mail and had been picked up by the tenant.

Councilor Jason Sullivan made a motion to defer the motion, as he claimed the resident had contacted him that day.

“We’ll give him another month, just to see what’s going on,” said Sullivan.

Councilor Keith O’Driscoll seconded the motion, and then inquired as to why council would move the date ahead by a month.

Sullivan said the resident had been planning on sending a formal reply to the Town regarding the issue.

Council voted unanimously to give him another month to collect his stuff.

Town says no to 100 lot development

By Mark Squibb/March 3, 2022

Two applications were denied by Bay Bulls council at last week’s meeting— and not for the first time either.

The first was an application for a new residential development along Track Road Extension.

“I know there used to be a policy where we wouldn’t continue to keep accepting the same applications,” said councilor Jason Sullivan. “We’ve seen this one twice. But in order for this application to go through, we need a proper survey… And the road needs to be upgraded to town standards in order to get to this piece of land. So, all that information has to accompany the application.”

Sullivan made a motion to deny not only the application, but also to send a letter to the resident saying council will not accept anymore applications without the required information.

Council also denied a Crown Land application for a residential subdivision on Cemetery lane West.

“This is again, another recurring application that has come in,” said Deputy Mayor Jason O’Brien. “There’s a couple of big things here that have to be assessed. One is that this area is in a provincial watershed area. As well, putting this large of a development, of over 100-plus lots, in this area is going to be really cumbersome for traffic flow. So there’s more engineering and investigation to be done. As well, some of the future plans of this thing (means) there’s some pretty big costs involved.”

He concluded that more investigation and study is needed to assess the application properly.

Sullivan added further that he believed the town had a 50-lot maximum policy in place. Town CAO Jennifer Aspell said that she wasn’t aware of the policy, but that that didn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Aspell said she would look into the matter. She also added some clarifications to the motion.

“If this is the second time that this application has been received in a six-month period, we have to provide a response to Crown Lands as one of the referral agencies that received this,” said Aspell. “Do you want it noted that we are not going to consider another application with this current information?”

Aspell pointed out the concerns about the watershed and the size of the development were raised the last time the application was before council.

“What we didn’t do the last time was to advise Crown Lands that the Town will not consider any further applications in this particular area, the same application again, unless there was additional information provided and the number of lots was reduced,” said Aspell.

Council denied the application unanimously.

A third request, a Crown Land application for a single residential lot on Track Road, was approved.

Privacy Commissioner examining town's handling of ATIPPA request

By Mark Squibb/February 24, 2022

A complaint from Witless Bay resident Anita Dunn regarding an ATIPP request to the Town has been referred to a formal investigation process.

“Attempts to resolve this complaint by informal means have been unsuccessful,” reads a letter from Juliette Ryan, an Access and Privacy Analyst with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner addressed to Dunn, dated February 7. “The file has now been referred to the formal investigation process in accordance with subsection 44(4) of ATIPPA, 2015.”

That section of the act reads, “Where the commissioner is unable to informally resolve the complaint within 30 business days of receipt of the complaint, the commissioner shall conduct a formal investigation of the subject matter of the complaint where he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to do so.”

In the fall, Dunn sent an ATIPPA request to the Town of Witless Bay requesting “all emails, phone records, texts, and any forms of communications, both on private forms of communication that were used for official town business and official forms of communication, prior to and after the swearing-in of officials, between all members of the Witless Bay town council, including the mayor and deputy mayor, and between all members of the Witless Bay council and any employee or former employee, and between the Witless Bay town council and any private citizen, regarding the motions that were rescinded in the first and second town meetings by the new council.”

Those motions, as previously reported by The Irish Loop Post, have to do with land off Mullowney’s Lane. The actions of the new council regarding those motions effectively blocked any further development in the area.

Not satisfied with the result of the ATIPPA request, which Dunn said did not contain the information requested, she filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

That Office did follow up interviews with the Town, and reported its findings to Dunn.

“The Town has explained to me the steps that it took in responding to your ATIPP request,” said Ryan in an e-mail addressed to Dunn. “It explained how it conducted its search, including who was involved in the search. The Town confirmed that its council members and employees were asked to search their personal accounts and devices as well. Further, it was confirmed that the members of the Town Office use their “@townofwitlessbay.ca” emails to conduct Town business, and that it is not their practice to use personal accounts or devices to conduct Town business. I also received confirmation that the Town’s Acting ATIPP Coordinator has received training through the ATIPP Office.”
According to Ryan, the Town claimed that responses to the ATIPP request may have appeared limited because “the Town Office was closed from June 11, 2021 to October 11, 2021. The Town explains that, during this time, the Office was not staffed, and that Town councilors were not sending correspondence to or receiving correspondence from the Town. Further, the current Town council was not elected until the end of September of 2021. Specifically in relation to council’s rescinding motions, I am advised that this discussion arose during a gathering of a new council where general planning matters were being discussed. It was not a formal privileged meeting whereby official notes were taken. It seems as though the council members were first made aware of the rescinding matters when they received the agenda items for the first meeting.”

As Dunn has indicated she is not satisfied with the follow up, the Office can now move forward with a formal investigation.

The issue, which the Office says has not been resolved, is “whether the Town of Witless Bay met its duty to assist the applicant under section 13 of ATIPPA, 2015, specifically whether the Town conducted a reasonable search.”

That section of the Act reads, “on an investigation of a complaint from a decision to refuse access to a record or part of a record, the burden is on the head of a public body to prove that the applicant has no right of access to the record or part of the record.”

Mayor Trevor Croft defended the Town’s handling of the ATIPPA request.

“We did everything we could to find any information that we needed,” said Croft. “The ATIPP office contacted us, and since we’re a new council, they went over exactly how to search through our e-mails using key words and stuff like that to make sure that everything could be found, and anything that we did find was provided.”

Croft doesn’t expect the process will cost the town any money.

“People are really set in their ways, especially in small towns like this,” said Croft “I’m never gong to say that people shouldn’t request an ATIPP or file an appeal if they feel like they’re being wronged, that’s definitely their right to do so, so I would definitely never say that they shouldn’t do that.”

Bay Bulls council opts to keep smaller chamber complement

By Mark Squibb/February 24, 2022

Bay Bulls council has narrowly voted down the idea of expanding its size to seven seats, which is the normal size of councils in the province.

The motion was actually to make a request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to approve the expansion. That’s because the previous council had obtained special permission from the minister to reduce the size of council to five seats after several years of trying in vain to fill two openings in the chamber. During last fall’s election, more than enough candidates to fill seven seats came forward, but only five people were elected because of the reduction that had been made.

Councillor Shannon O’ Driscoll put forward the motion to go back to seven seats. Councillor Keith O’ Driscoll seconded it.

“Residents have been asking us to increase our seats, and sometimes we have conflict of interests, so I just think it’s a good idea to increase our seats,” said Shannon O’Driscoll.

Councillor Keith O’Driscoll agreed, adding that council does come up against conflict of interests quite frequently, and adding two seats might alleviate that problem.

Mayor Neil O’Brien, Deputy Mayor Jason O’Brien, and councilor Jason Sullivan voted against the motion, defeating it.

There was no further discussion.

In an interview afterwards, Mayor Brien said the biggest factor in his decision to vote against the motion was a financial one.

“By-elections cost money,” said O’Brien. “So, unless we’re having a general election, why now change it to seven and cost the taxpayers of Bay Bulls just for an extra two seats? Because the last council decided to change it. I just don’t see the rationale in spending the money for it. It’s not like things are not moving. Things are moving quite favorably in the town, with decisions and voting, so I just don’t see the need to spend the money on a by-election.”

When the previous council announced it was getting permission to go to five seats, O’Brien, who was then a resident and not a councillor, criticized the move.

“If the town is growing and we’re adding town staff positions such as town managers and (a) Director of Public Works, then why are we reducing council seats?” he asked in a social media post.

When asked about that post, O’Brien said the difference is that the town is not growing now.

“What would suggest that the town is growing?” he asked “How many business applications and home (building permits) have you seen since we’ve been elected? Very, very few to none.”

The mayor argued that choosing to reduce a compliment of seven to five and choosing to not increase a compliment of five to seven are very different things.

“I just don’t see the need to spend taxpayers money to increase it if it’s working,” he said. “If it wasn’t working, I would probably be on a different side of the fence. But right now, it’s working. I know that there’s probably a few that want it, but anyway, so be it, they can have it if they want, but I’m not voting in favor to increase it.”

As to the split between council on the issue, O’Brien said that’s to be expected sometimes.

“You’re going to have a split on council about issues, that’s what makes it a council,” said O’Brien. “If we all agreed we would never make progress. Right now, they feel there is a need for it, and we feel that there isn’t. So, right now the council seat stands at five, three makes the majority, and three made the majority vote the other night. That’s politics, that’s not changed.”

Whether the Town would have had to call a by-election to fill two more seats, or simply take the sixth and seventh runners from the field of 10 who ran in September, is unclear. Mayor O’Brien admitted he didn’t know the answer, pointing out it would be up to Municipal Affairs.

The sixth and seventh runners in the election were former Mayor Harold Mullowney and former councillor Joan Luby. Mullowney, who served on council for more than 30 years, missed getting re-elected by 21 votes.

When approached last week, he couldn’t say whether the decision to keep a compliment of five is right or wrong.

“It might be the appropriate thing to do, because getting a full compliment of seven is a challenge,” said Mullowney. “The more you have, the easier it is to have quorum, obviously. But I know myself when I was there went to the people four or five times trying to get two councillors, and it just couldn’t be done. And I think you would see the same situation in many towns.”

Mullowney experienced firsthand the difficulty that can arise with only five seats around the table.

“The challenge when you only have five, is that there are going to be many situations where you’re going to have to excuse yourself because of a conflict, and then that necessitates going to the government to get ministerial approval to make decisions on things,” he said. “The last council, that happened a number of times.”

As to whether he would have run again had a by-election been called last week, Mullowney didn’t have to think too hard about his answer.

“I’m sure there’s other good people out there,” said Mullowney. “I did 31 years. I think that’s pretty well a record in many areas of the province. I was there as long as the people needed me, and I enjoyed my time there, but I don’t regret not being there.”