Special to The Labradorian
Seating and standing room was filled at the Happy Valley-Goose Bay council chambers on Jan. 5 as close to 100 residents came together to say ‘no’ to construction camps in their backyards.
Prior to the meeting, the town received an application from Shaw Group, a contractor for the Lower Churchill Project, to establish a 150-man construction camp off Kelland Drive.
A few minutes into the meeting Mayor Leo Abbass announced that the contractor, at hearing of public disproval, had withdrawn its application.
With much up-and-coming development for the area, the mayor explained that a zoning amendment to include construction camps as a possible usage for commercial zones was still on the table.
“The rational for us in including that wording in the commercial zone is there are a number of things coming at us right now. We’re trying to be pro-active in trying to look at how we can deal with it,” he said. “Those issues will not go away.”
The public meeting, called by the town council, was not to specifically discuss the Kelland Drive proposal but to discuss the proposed amendment to the current town by-laws. If passed, the amendment would change the zoning of commercial areas, such as the commercial area off Kelland Drive, to allow for the construction of the temporary worker housing.
The attendees waited their allocated five-minutes at the microphone.
Roberta Frampton Benefiel came to town with her parents in 1947. She said at that point in time, Goose Bay was a construction camp.
“Today the town has come of age in many ways. Homeowners in nearly every part of the community take pride in their home and in their yards.”
“You need to see, and you need to understand if you put construction camps in the centre of town, what you’re going to have to deal with.”
Former town councillor Dean Clarke voiced his disapproval of the current proposal, adding the town has to make plans for the future.
“Make no mistake, development is coming and we have to deal with the housing problem in some way, shape or form,” he said.
Town Manager Wyman Jacque explained that the proposed amendment was based on the up-and-coming development to the area, from the Lower Churchill Project, to the proposed iron sands and the recent lifting of the uranium moratorium.
“We have a proponent who came to the town, who recognized based on what the proponent was requesting, that the town did not have any regulation that specifically addressed their request,” said Mr. Jacque.
”So this was an intent to try to be ahead of potential activity that is going to happen.”
Some residents felt the town could handle a construction camp on its outskirts or in its industrial zones, which are further from residential areas.
Still others were against any such housing in town boundaries.
Jenny Hefler-Elson is the Executive Director of the Labrador Friendship Centre. She felt the town should not feel the pressure to accommodate these workers.
“I think the best place for that camp is close to the [Lower Churchill] site. Put the camp close to the project if it has to go anywhere near.”
Housing challenges
Housing has been a large issue for a number of years in the community. In 2007, a group of local stakeholders came together to discuss the issue and a Community Plan was developed to deal with the housing shortage.
A Housing Development Worker position was created.
Denise Cole is the current Housing Development Worker based the Labrador Friendship Centre.
She said the shortage of housing that already exists in town would only make a construction camp harder on those most affected by the housing shortage.
“This would negatively affect clients in our most vulnerable population,” she said. “If we’re going to talk about re-zoning, why don’t we talk about re-zoning for affordable housing?”
Janet Skinner felt the town had not done enough research on the impact of construction camps prior to proposing the amendment.
“Not all construction workers are bad but history shows us that when you put a group of people together in a construction camp, when you’re off work, you do things that you wouldn’t normally do if you were in a family setting.”
Even the current council was divided on the issue as a nearly split vote brought the proposed amendment to the public.
Councillor Lidija Chubbs argued against the by-law from the time it was first discussed. She said the major issue was not that the town was looking to change the zoning by-laws but the way the amendment came forth.
“They should have never accepted the application [from the contractor] in the first place,” she said.
As town zoning regulations do not permit construction camps in commercial areas, Chubbs said the application should have been rejected as are any other applications for development that does not meet the criteria for a particular zone.
The mayor hinted that council might reject the proposed amendment.
However, that amendment has not yet officially been brought to the town council table, as public input is a requirement prior to a decision.
takua@hotmail.ca
.jpg)
.jpg)
