Letter: His words

I question my own wisdom in responding to Al Norman’s letter of March 27, but my concern is that someone might take Mr. Norman’s words literally rather than as the hyperbole I assume they were meant to be.

“Yet the ConCom is trying to further weaken the ordinance for one reason: to make it easier for developers to put concrete over wetlands.”

Well, no. The rewrite was done at the request of the Town Council because ordinances have to be reviewed periodically. The changes were made to clarify points and improve wording that caused confusion in dealing with the applications and enforcement provisions brought before the CC over the years. In my time with the CC, I’ve yet to hear facilitating development mentioned as a criterion for any decision. The entire focus is on preservation of wetland resources. Furthering development simply isn’t part of CC’s mission. If I had any concerns that the current rewrite would weaken that mission, I would not have voted to approve it.

“This key section (is) ... the only one that really goes stricter than the state Wetlands Act.”

Well, no. The CC cannot legally relax any state regulation, so every aspect of the ordinance that deals with restrictions is stricter than the state guidelines.

I write this from my own experiences, and not as a representative of the Conservation Commission. I admit that I am indeed unelected, although it’s hard for me to consider myself “an official.” Mainly, I’m a volunteer trying to keep Greenfield green by providing guidance and oversight to Greenfield citizens whose actions affect the natural resources of the town. Mr. Norman has never spoken with me, so I don’t know why he feels I, being part of the CC, am either incompetent or dishonest.



There are no comments yet. Be the first!
Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.