Letter: Williamstown Land Needs to Stay in Conservation

Print Story | Email Story
To the editor:
 
I read with interest the iBerkshires,com report of the July 24th meeting of the Williamstown Conservation Commission.  Guess I march to a different drummer than several in the audience who urged developing  the Lowry and Burbank properties!  Here's why:
 
How many open spaces are left in town that are not privately owned, that could replace the Lowry and Burbank properties as open space and agricultural conservation land? Don't tell me the Spruces is one of them, because that property could never ever replace Burbank and Lowry.  The Spruces property lies along busy Route 2, has many large culverts buried underneath it, and long years of toxic chemicals leaking into the ground from the vehicles and buildings placed there. And plans are already being discussed as to how it's going to be developed.
 
There was also a comment that we don't need this conservation land to view the mountains because there are other places in town where we can see the same mountains. Yes, I can see the mountains from my apartment window on Adams Road, but while I'm enjoying the view, someone is liable to phone me about "my current credit card account." (Would you believe that before I finished this letter, someone did?)  Yes, we can also see the mountains from Route 2 or the Wal-Mart Parking Lot.  Are you telling me it makes no difference whether I'm looking at mountains from a grassy, open field or a cement parking lot?
 
Lowry and Burbank are untouched quiet getaways, with no "planned" nature activities.  A Girl or Boy Scout Troop could go there, and the children could choose their own nature activity like running to the bottom of the natural bowl at Lowry, watching a rabbit or a deer and her fawn, identifying the trees, or just sitting in a quiet place to look around at the miracles of nature.
 
I'm really concerned that our children will indeed view from a parking lot what's left of the beauty that now surrounds us. I'm sure the Williamstown Conservation Commission will not let this happen.
 
Priscilla M. Northup
Williamstown
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Williamstown Charter Review Panel OKs Fix to Address 'Separation of Powers' Concern

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Charter Review Committee on Wednesday voted unanimously to endorse an amended version of the compliance provision it drafted to be added to the Town Charter.
 
The committee accepted language designed to meet concerns raised by the Planning Board about separation of powers under the charter.
 
The committee's original compliance language — Article 32 on the annual town meeting warrant — would have made the Select Board responsible for determining a remedy if any other town board or committee violated the charter.
 
The Planning Board objected to that notion, pointing out that it would give one elected body in town some authority over another.
 
On Wednesday, Charter Review Committee co-Chairs Andrew Hogeland and Jeffrey Johnson, both members of the Select Board, brought their colleagues amended language that, in essence, gives authority to enforce charter compliance by a board to its appointing authority.
 
For example, the Select Board would have authority to determine a remedy if, say, the Community Preservation Committee somehow violated the charter. And the voters, who elect the Planning Board, would have ultimate say if that body violates the charter.
 
In reality, the charter says very little about what town boards and committees — other than the Select Board — can or cannot do, and the powers of bodies like the Planning Board are regulated by state law.
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories