From what I can gather from this report in the Daily News (and it's not hard to gather, given the headline 'Hostile' letter keeps Salisbury's Harrington away from Plum Island ), this Plum Island Foundation really knows how to win friends and influence people.
It seems that the Foundation and a citizens' group last March sent Town Manager Neil Harrington a letter threatening a law suit if Salisbury does not agree to allow sand dredged from the mouth of the river to be deposited on Plum Island.
"We simply cannot grant legitimacy to a meeting organized by a group that ostensibly wants our support at the same time it is threatening to take legal action against us," Harrington wrote to [Plum Island Foundation Vice President Robert] Connors last Friday.
Wow, does this sound at all familiar, people in Ward 5?
Harrington did not attend last week's meeting at PITA Hall on Plum Island, at which the Army Corps of Engineers talked erosion.
Connors responded with this, to Harrington: "Wouldn't the citizens of Salisbury be better served having their town manager attend to learn firsthand of the necessary steps, the possible solutions of erosion control and beach nourishment?" he added.
Again, according to the Daily News, Salisbury and Plum Island had previously agreed to alternate on who gets the sand from the dredging. (Not sure what political entity Plum Island is.) Plum Island got the last load, 10 years ago.
Salisbury had apparently agreed that the next load should go to Plum Island , so I don't see the impetus behind the nastiness. The letter threatening legal action was written by a Boston attorney.
All this is, again, kind of jumping the gun, in that the Army Corps of Engineers has said again and again that they don't do beach replenishment, and that the sand would probably be dumped off shore from Plum Island, as it was 10 years ago.
Jerry Klima, chairman of the Salisbury Selectmen, did attend the meeting, but said his presence should not be construed as an endorsement of the Plum Island Foundation. He said he thought the communities could probably persuade federal officials to give their financial support to beach nourishment projects — but only if they work together.
What, he doesn't think threatening a lawsuit is working together?!
Showing posts with label Salisbury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salisbury. Show all posts
Friday, June 20, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Wetlands by-law repealed in Salisbury
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.
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.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Conservation concerns in Salisbury
I know I'm one of those 'upstarts' who blew in from the big city and think I should spread environmental awareness throughout the land, but honestly!
Now some people in Salisbury want to repeal the town's wetlands bylaw. At least it's not the town wanting to repeal its own bylaws. And,no, I'm not saying that Newbury wants to repeal its wetlands bylaws!
According to the Daily News, Kevin Henderson of 61 Atlantic Ave. and 16 other registered voters filed the petition that appears as Article 22 in hopes of getting voters to repeal the town's wetlands protection bylaw, which was passed on Nov. 27, 1989. The bylaw relates to protection of Salisbury's barrier beach, flood plains, wetlands and aquifer areas.
But the town has stepped up to debunk the myth that eliminating (or scoffing at) local bylaws would be of any use whatsoever.
According to Town Manager Neil Harrington, Salisbury's Conservation Commission is the local enforcement authority for the state of Massachusetts and the state's Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act. Eliminating Salisbury's wetlands bylaw wouldn't dissolve the Conservation Commission, nor eliminate the authority given by the state to enforce conservation laws.
"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."
I could insert here stuff about the big fight that Newbury had last year with the DEP over paving the dirt side streets on Plum Island as part of the water/sewer project and that asphalt parking lot at PI center (the one that is now filled with sand).
I should note that the much larger Newburport-owned parking lot, at Plum Island point, is paved. It is well back from the water - but it still should be gravel.
But - about that last paragraph from the DN - what is the "bone of contention?" Do the "some people at the beach" want it paved, or not?
Oh, why do I continue to aggravate people? Why can't I be a good little blogger?
Now some people in Salisbury want to repeal the town's wetlands bylaw. At least it's not the town wanting to repeal its own bylaws. And,no, I'm not saying that Newbury wants to repeal its wetlands bylaws!
According to the Daily News, Kevin Henderson of 61 Atlantic Ave. and 16 other registered voters filed the petition that appears as Article 22 in hopes of getting voters to repeal the town's wetlands protection bylaw, which was passed on Nov. 27, 1989. The bylaw relates to protection of Salisbury's barrier beach, flood plains, wetlands and aquifer areas.
But the town has stepped up to debunk the myth that eliminating (or scoffing at) local bylaws would be of any use whatsoever.
According to Town Manager Neil Harrington, Salisbury's Conservation Commission is the local enforcement authority for the state of Massachusetts and the state's Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act. Eliminating Salisbury's wetlands bylaw wouldn't dissolve the Conservation Commission, nor eliminate the authority given by the state to enforce conservation laws.
"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."
I could insert here stuff about the big fight that Newbury had last year with the DEP over paving the dirt side streets on Plum Island as part of the water/sewer project and that asphalt parking lot at PI center (the one that is now filled with sand).
I should note that the much larger Newburport-owned parking lot, at Plum Island point, is paved. It is well back from the water - but it still should be gravel.
But - about that last paragraph from the DN - what is the "bone of contention?" Do the "some people at the beach" want it paved, or not?
Oh, why do I continue to aggravate people? Why can't I be a good little blogger?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
