Ordinance would Take away options
To the editor:
In Ivy Vann’s recent discussion about the Planning Board’s proposed new subdivision regulations, she promotes the concept of mandating conservation easements to protect, for example, small vernal pools.
Vernal pools are already protected by conservation laws. As we all know, landscape and ecosystem profiles change over time. Take, for example, the American Elm or the currently threatened White Ash trees. If our predecessors had permanently restricted the use of Chestnut groves on otherwise ordinary land what purpose would that serve today? Should vernal pools literally dry up in 30 or 50 years (or the amphibians who live in them simply decide to vacate) — what then?
Our town will be left with a patchwork of small non-contiguous land on which our fellows will be forever prohibited from putting to good use. I maintain that conservation easements should be voluntary and not mandated by our local government as is proposed by the Planning Board.