| Greenwood ordinace defeated by a margin of more than 3 to 1 |
| By Michael Daniels |
A proposed new Land Management Ordinance for Greenwood drew a standing-room-only crowd to the Town Hall last Wednesday evening -- nearly three times the usual turnout for a Town Meeting.
“All the chairs were full, and they were standing two deep around the back of the room,” said Town Manager Kim Sparks.
The special Town Meeting had been called to ask voters if they wished to adopt the new ordinance, a 39-page document — the result of more than five years of work by the town Planning Board and other volunteers.
If approved, the ordinance would have replaced the town’s existing, three-quarters-of-a-page land-development code.
But voters instead emphatically rejected the change, by a margin of more than three-to-one.
Voting by secret ballot, they defeated the Land Use Ordinance 41-137.
Minds made up
The pending fate of the ordinance was clear long before the ballots were tallied.
“From what I’ve heard I don’t imagine there are too many who have come tonight who have not already made up there minds,” said Woodstock Town Manager Vern Maxfield, who moderated the meeting.
Maxfield suggested one person each from the pro and con camps lay out the basic rationale for their positions, then the floor would be open for questions and comments.
Planning Board member Jim St. Germain led off, for the ‘yes’ side.
The ordinance, he said, “has to do with what this town is going to become in 10, 20 years.
“All we’re asking for is some respect for the neighbors,” he said. “If you want to build, you can build. Just care for what the neighbors have — this is a community.”
Regrettably, he said, some basic rules are necessary, “because there are a lot of people who just don’t care. All they’re looking for is to maximize their investment.”
But Albert Curtis Sr., speaking for ordinance opponents, said he owned land that had been passed to him from his father, and if he himself wished to pass that land on to his children and grandchildren, they would find it difficult, if not impossible, to build on, since the land would be classified under the new ordinance as ridgeline.
And, he noted, “when Greenwood was settled years ago, they came up over Patch Mountain and went right on through to Bethel — and that was ridgeline development.”
Striking a similar line of argument, Gordon Morgan pointed to an existing town ordinance proponents often cite as an example of regulatory success — Greenwood’s (state-mandated) Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.
“Probably 90 percent (I can’t say for sure) of the camps on the lakes in the town of Greenwood would not be able to be built today if the ordinance had been in place in the 1940s,” he said.
“And I find that most of the ‘yes’ people are the people who have their little place on the ponds and lakes.”
For an over-packed Town Meeting where opinions ran strong, Wednesday’s gathering was short and to the point.
A half hour into the proceeding a motion was made to move the question.
The motion passed unopposed.
Twenty minutes later the votes had been cast, tallied, and the ordinance was defeated.
Two proposed amendments to the ordinance, establishing overlay districts for the Greenwood Road and ridgelines, were then summarily dispatched by shows of hands.
The meeting, which began at 7 p.m., adjourned at 8:10. |
