Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
Skeptics and naysayers, considering more hotels, motels and higher density housing in Chelsea, should consider this: Hardly anyone opposed similar major development plans 30 years ago.
If you’re surprised, so were municipal officials at the time. An Ottawa Citizen article from 1980 describes two information meetings about the master plan for Chelsea, formerly named West Hull.
The plans included “cluster housing” of three houses per acre within 300 acres of the municipality, a “residential tourist zone” allowing for the construction of hotels and restaurants, a provision to allow the expansions of buildings by up to 50 per cent and a community centre.
“Not one objection was raised,” states the article, to the “surprise of municipal officials.”
Former mayor Andre Renaud, who was chairman of the West Hull planning commission, said he expected more people at the meeting. Just 14 people attended the English information session and three people sat in on the French version.
It was drastically different from a 1971 meeting that first introduced the master plan.
“It set off a community-wide debate involving hundreds of people,” the article states.
The master plan outlines the municipality’s planning principals and boundaries. The document is updated every five years.
Today, major development plans have generated more heated discussion, with the proposed $14.4-million waterline arguably at the crux of the debate.
Council members argue that as Chelsea grows, a new waterline will supply water without its drilling more wells.
But the Vision Chelsea Committee, a municipally funded group mandated to consult residents about the future of Chelsea’s centre village, stated in a letter to the Low Down that a municipal waterline will destroy Chelsea’s rural character.
With the 1980 article in mind, the Low Down decided to ask four former mayors and current mayor Caryl Green what they think of a municipal water line in Chelsea’s two villages. We asked:
Is a municipal waterline a good thing for Chelsea’s villages?
Andre Renaud, Mayor 1971-1973
“I possess few facts, so my answer has to be conditional. In short, it is yes with cost recovery through user pay.
I base my opinion on the new fact, i.e., the “zone of influence,” (see map published in the Low Down, Feb. 9, 2011). The article states that only one communal well can be installed in a large area of the village, thus precluding other developments. And, apparently, the owner will be liable for any diminishing of the water supply in existing wells. If that is true, I would want to safeguard existing wells and, at the same time, allow for normal expansion by installing piped water at the same time as sewer pipes.
Coliform found in the storm sewers, in the Old Chelsea-Scott Road area, create an environmental and health risk. Quebec requires installing sewage treatment pipes for which it will provide a grant. At the same time, two developers propose private systems in the village. In the past, municipalities have been forced to take over such private systems. So I would want to safeguard Chelsea’s interests by considering only a public sewage treatment system.
I recall the controversy in Wakefield village with sewage treatment. It installed them and, from all indications, everyone including merchants, seems happy but some regret that water pipes were not installed at the same time.
Chelsea can manage the direction and pace of change resulting from these services, through the usual municipal instruments of zoning and building permit bylaws. Council will be informed by community input such as the Vision Report.”
Jim Brown, Mayor 1973-1975
“On the question of water lines or sports halls or almost any community undertaking, it would be a mistake to ever think it is done to save money and that taxes would go down. I remember being told when I was mayor in 1973-75 that growth was the way to provide increased services and at the same time lower taxes! It never works! More people want more services and more services require more staff and the staff start to run the municipality. The Bureaucracy feeds on itself, growing bigger all the time. No one ever says “Stop!” So if Chelsea needs piped water to grow, ask why it should grow first because it will cost some body of taxpayers a lot of money and what exactly are the benifits again? More people wanting more police, more library, more buses, more public works, more community recreation facilities – it just goes on! Chelsea has a high quality of life now. Why would more people make it better?”
Judy Grant, Mayor 1993-2001
“If this system is being brought in for a subdivision which, as far as I am concerned, should never have been approved and for a recreation complex which the municipality cannot afford, it is nonsense. The taxes in Chelsea have become a joke as have the council meetings and the way the new council is going about things. A water system at this time is ridiculous . . . the taxpayers simply cannot afford it.”
Jean Perras, Mayor 2001-2009
Declined to comment. “I won’t get involved in municipal politics.”
Caryl Green, Mayor since 2009
Chelsea council has the responsibility to make decisions that are in the best, long-term interests of the citizens of Chelsea.
In December 2009, Chelsea council was informed by the Ministry of the Environment that approval for a second well in the centre village sector would be “highly unlikely.” Drawing water from the Gatineau River would protect existing wells while allowing for controlled growth (e.g., local services, a range of housing options, including housing for our seniors).
Standards for fire protection have become much stricter for Quebec municipalities. Any increase in density and/or the clustering of buildings would require that Chelsea have greater fire protection. Fire hydrants would improve response times and ultimately reduce insurance costs for homeowners in the centre village.
The 2007 study on a municipal sewage line demonstrated that building and operating one system, instead of multiple systems, is more economical, in terms of both the capital and operating costs. The same applies for building and operating a municipal water line in this sector.
When the roads are being dug up for sewers, a water pipe could be installed at the same time with considerable savings to the taxpayer. Chelsea council believes that taking advantage of this opportunity is fiscally responsible and would lead to a sustainable future for our community.
Copyright © LowDownOnline.com
Full article: http://www.lowdownonline.com/former-chelsea-quebec-mayors-weigh-in-on-waterline-debate/#comments