Because of the concerns raised in numerous letters to the editor about the clear-cutting on Bare Hill Pond, I’d like to clear up several issues.
Credible evidence was given during the course of many hearings that the understory brush and small trees had already been cut when the Mace family took title to the property. Perhaps it was by the former owners or by their real estate agent to enhance the sale of the property; I don’t know. Unfortunately, this cutting may have suggested the removal of the more substantial trees and, in some way, sanctioned it. In any event, the Maces, or their contractor, improperly cut down five trees on a site that had already been illegally cleared.
There seems to have been some umbrage taken that the Conservation Commission only required the replacement of the five trees taken down. This is a false impression. The commissioners’ primary concern has been erosion prevention. Realizing that tree planting was not going to restore the high canopy any time soon, it also required replanting the understory with smaller trees and numerous shrubs, most of them natives, such as bearberry, winterberry, mountain laurel, and shadblow. The commission hired an arborist (paid by the applicant) to advise them as to the suitability of the species, the manner of their planting, the size of the specimens, and the density of the planting. The final plan reflects his recommendations.
The tone of many of the letters suggests that the commission should have been particularly tough on the owners. The rules and regs promulgated by the Concom provide for a penalty under circumstances such as this: the doubling of all requisite filing fees. After that, the Concom’s aim was properly focused on remedying the situation at hand. If any town board lets its deliberations and conclusions be influenced by vengeance or “setting an example,” it will ultimately undermine its own authority and credibility.
George Watkins
Shaker Road
