I just got a heads up from a reader. besides complaining about my grammar, I am told that the area in question for the wetlands may in fact be a road at least on the plan at town hall. If in fact this is the case it would certainly put a twist in the enforcement aspect of the dispute. still doesn't clear up rationale for granting the request for town council, or I should say voting against the request. I am doing this from my cell phone so I imagine grandma is going to be an issue for this 1 too. Imperfectly yours, I will now sign off.
John, not sure where you acquired your "heads-up" information, or how it was presented to you, but it is not quite accurate or really even relevant to the violations identified by the Conservation Commission.
ReplyDeleteShawmut Street does appear on a publicly-available Assessor's map, which shows the "street" terminating at the western end right at the marsh edge along Nasketucket Creek.
HOWEVER, just because the Assessor's map shows the street, it:
1) does not necessarily mean its an actual public way or accepted street (which have their own implications);
2) gives absolutely NO ONE any right to drive over or through a marsh/wetland and “alter” it even if it IS a "street" on paper, and;
3) gives NO ONE any right to utilize the "street" to trespass on property or damage it regardless of ANY signage, postings, etc. or lack thereof.
It appears that most (square feet) of alteration occurred on the parcel owned by the Land Trust, not on a “roadway”. Some of the alterations may actually be in the Town roadway layout, however. In fact, some of the “street” may not even be on the road layout at all! It isn't inconceivable that the Town may have to share in the burden of having to correct an alteration. That's one thing Town Counsel may have to figure out.
A visit to the location will show you as clear as day that the damage continues from a dirt cul-de-sac on Shawmut “street” in a roughly southwesterly direction across private (but not posted) property and away from what anyone could conceivably argue is a "road." Couple that with some orthophotography and other mapping resources and the evidence is that much more obvious.
To continue with my long-windedness:
ReplyDeleteIf one cares to read the Wetland Protection Act and Regulations AND the Bylaw, they will learn the definition of "alteration", and that the damage to this marsh is alteration no matter how you slice it. It was unpermitted, meets no exemptions, and does not meet any performance standard. It is legally UNPERMITTABLE. It doesn't matter if it used to be done in the old days, it doesn't matter if you think you needed a sign to tell you, it doesn't matter if you say you didn't know any better.
I have heard, as have you, that other people have been witnessed driving in that marsh (and others) in the not so distant past. I've admittedly heard of a few times when others have driven on marshes – one off Hacker Street rings a bell. How does one control what gets reported/witnessed and what doesn't - as is the case with virtually all complaints, violations, and enforcement issues? One cannot. When things are brought to the attention of the ConCom, the ConCom is required to act on those reports and violations. If you get caught in violation – you're likely going to the one who gets to correct it. That's how it works.
Ask anyone else who has received an Enforcement Order/Restoration Order about their experience. There are unfortunately a lot of people in Town who have received them. The vast majority of violators do not damage wetlands out of spite or bad intention - they do it largely out of ignorance. Yet those folks still have to correct their errors, despite their convenient or even honest excuses. Some folks voluntarily fix their violations, some folks require letters, or Enforcement Orders, or court summons, or additional means in order to ensure their compliance.
The fact is, operation of a motor vehicle did - without any doubt - cause an alteration of resource areas pursuant to Town Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act/Regs. It really is that simple and indisputable. Preventing or limiting alteration to wetlands is the basic premise of Wetlands Protection! It is WHY you have a Conservation Commission.
Here's an interesting factoid! Did you know that the area in question also appears to be WITHIN an area mapped by the State's Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program as being "Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife"AND "Priority Habitats of Rare Species"? You can check the maps yourself on the MassGIS website. So we are not dealing with just damage to a marsh here. This is potentially a VERY serious situation. If someone at State or Federal level determined that damage to be a "take" of an endangered species or their habitat, this could be more serious and expensive than you could imagine. Read about the "taking" of plovers/plover habitat recently in Plymouth to see how that is unfolding, and who might foot the bill. Food for thought.
The reality is that someone will have to - and SHOULD - deal with this in the very near future. It very well could have and can still be done without enforcement actions. A voluntary return-to-compliance is still a potential option. There may be some simple and inexpensive solutions to this. It could even be collaborative. I'd much prefer it to go that route, which is one of the reasons that a Violation Letter (as opposed to outright enforcement) was sent to the parties involved. The next hearing on the issue will be on August 20th, where all involved parties were requested to attend. I guess we'll all see then.