So according to the Daily News, Salisbury last night voted to repeal its wetlands by-law.
Proponents of the bylaw, including Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Hughes, said the removal of the bylaw would leave property owners at the mercy of the state Department of Environmental Protection, which will oversee wetlands development issues without the buffer the local Conservation Commission could provide.
I'm not clear on what the citizens think will happen (but I'm also not up on rulings by the town's Conservation Commission), but Town Manager had this to say in an earlier story in the DN:
"Eliminating Salisbury's bylaw means that everything at the beach would have to conform to the state's standards," Harrington said. "In the case of paving at the beach, for example — which is a big bone of contention with some people at the beach — if Salisbury's bylaw is eliminated and the Conservation Commission's authority is effaced, paving issues at the beach would go straight to the DEP. And its standards on paving at the beach are more stringent than Salisbury's."
Well, I think folks in Newbury would agree with Harrington's view. The town tussled with the DEP over paving side streets on Plum Island as part of the water/sewer project. It seems that this is the central issue: paving at the beach.
Either way, it's kind of disheartening how put-upon local conservation commissions are. My guess is that once residents realize that the DEP is not going to cave, they'll be sorry. And I would think the state will not be happy to have these matters thrown back on the DEP.
But I could be wrong.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I must admit I don't often read the news of the surrounding towns, but I never saw any article that explained why Salisbury residents wanted to repeal this by-law. What do they gain (or think they gain)?
Apparently they think the ConCom is an unnecessary obstacle to additional paving at beachfront properties ...? It's not that clear to me, either!
I believe the case that spawned the repeal was that of an elderly couple being denied the ability to re-pave their driveway.
As for the repeal, I think both sides are being disingenuous (or maybe it's just bad reporting). Local Wetlands by-laws are additive - they can add more restrictions but they can't override provisions of the state laws. However, the DEP does provide guidance on certain issues (how open a fence has to be for example)that local ConComs may or may not adopt - though in practive most adopt them so there is no real difference.
The real issues I believe is that of interpretation and how the by-laws are applied. For example, state building codes and FEMA regulations require that when a building in flood plain is expanded by more than 25%, the entire building must be elevated on pilings. Newburyport (though nowhere its local ordinance) considers both volume and sq footage in their 25% calculation, most towns do not.
I believe it's the ever-changing rules and their application that are the issue.
Thanks, Bubba. You make perfect sense.
Post a Comment