By Mark Squibb/November 11, 2021
An application for a three-lot subdivision on Crosbie Road led to a lengthy discussion at Bay Roberts council last week.
“The proposal here is to develop a three-lot subdivision, and basically, the problem that the developers, and I guess the town, are running into, is that Crosbie Road itself was not developed to today’s standards, so it doesn’t have a proper waterline,” explained town CAO Nigel Black. “I think there are five residents in that area and they’re on an underserviced line, so it doesn’t have the capacity to service three more lots. There is adequate sewer there, and the developer is proposing to put a sewer main extension in, with a manhole. But they’re proposing to service the three lots with artesian wells as opposed to town water, and they’re also not proposing a storm water system as there is no existing storm water system in that area.”
Black noted the development would be within a safe, 800-foot distance of a fire hydrant.
“We were concerned that it wasn’t, but we measured it, and it was,” said Black.
The motion was for approval of the application with a sewer line extension, artesian wells (depending on approval from Service NL) and a paved road, all to be completed by the developer.
Councilor Dean Franey moved the motion, which councilor Frank Deering seconded.
Councilor Silas Badcock, however, took some issue with aspects of the motion.
“I think we should upgrade that area, looking ahead to the future,” said Badcock. “Someone is probably going to buy a house on a well that we could be servicing through our water. That’s my thoughts. I think the town should look into upgrading that area. You’re looking at three new developments going up with artesian wells rather than town supplied service.”
Mayor Walter Yetman asked, for clarification, if Badcock thought the road should be upgraded for the purpose of the subdivision.
“For sure,” replied Badcock.
Black said there had been discussion to that effect within committee meetings.
Deputy Mayor Geoff Seymour then asked if there was room for further development in the area, to which Black replied, ‘No.’
Franey expressed concern that upgrading the road might mean that other roads get skipped over, to which Seymour, Badcock and councilor Perry Bowering quickly agreed.
Yetman noted that it would be important for folks buying homes in the area to know about the lack of storm sewer drainage, which Black said would be the onus of the developer to disclose.
Again, Badcock asked if council would consider putting in a waterline so that residents will not have to rely on wells.
Yetman said that he didn’t quite follow.
“So, right now, we’re saying that we do have adequate sewer,” he said. “So, why wouldn’t we run the waterline there, for those three houses?”
Black said that it would be a fair expense to service just three homes.
Franey reminded council that the waterline already in place is sufficient for the five houses on the road, but would need to be upgraded to accommodate the three homes to be built in the subdivision.
Seymour pointed out the cost of the waterline extension would fall to the developer, to which Franey agreed.
When it came to a vote, Badcock was the lone councilor to vote against the motion.
“I’m not opposed to the subdivision, by no means, I’m opposed to the wells,” said Badcock. “I want to make that clear. I’m not opposed to it by no means.”