Follow Up: Waltham Wetlands Ordinance
from Daily News Tribune
see previous article

WALTHAM -- After getting an earful from more than a dozen fired up residents and developers last night, City Council decided the proposed Wetlands Protection Ordinance needs more work...

The wetlands ordinance had received little attention since March when it began a nine-month tenure before the committee. But last week, after being published in its entirety in the News Tribune, the bylaw became the subject of an intense lobbying effort by pro-development forces who opposed it.

I think that rather than sanity prevailing, the Council doesn't want to make a decision when the public is watching. Wait a few months and I bet this will pass, slightly amended, during a session where no one is looking.

More

Wetlands ordinance draws fire

By Joshua Myerov / Tribune Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 9, 2003

WALTHAM -- After getting an earful from more than a dozen fired up residents and developers last night, City Council decided the proposed Wetlands Protection Ordinance needs more work.

For more than an hour, proponents and opponents took turns at the microphone, either praising the bylaw as necessary for the protection of Waltham's natural resources or charging that it would lower the value of homes and create more bureaucracy and costs for the average homeowner.

In the end, the ordinance, three years in the works, was sent back to the Ordinances & Rules Committee. Just last week, the committee sent it to the full council with a recommendation for approval.

"As a result of what we heard this evening," said Councilor Gary Marchese, the committee chairman, "I think this ordinance needs additional reviews."

The wetlands ordinance had received little attention since March when it began a nine-month tenure before the committee. But last week, after being published in its entirety in the News Tribune, the bylaw became the subject of an intense lobbying effort by pro-development forces who opposed it.

They sent out a mass-mailing, took out full-page ads in the News Tribune and accused the council and the Conservation Commission of secretly trying to pass it.

The Conservation Commission shot back, issuing its own point-by-point response to the ads and pointing out that it and the council have held numerous public meetings.

Last night, even the most basic facts were in dispute.

Laura Cannon, a Lexington Street attorney, said the city needs a wetlands ordinance, but not the current one, which she called "unenforceable and unconstitutional."

The provision that would forbid building within 50 feet of a protected wetlands, she said, amounts to an illegal land-taking. "This could be deemed a deprivation of (a homeowner's) property," Cannon said.

She also took aim at the section that says appeals will be heard in Superior Court rather than before the state's Department of Environmental Protection, as they are now.

"(The current) process works for both the homeowner and the developer and the protection of our natural resources," she said.

But Sheryl Waddick, the Conservation Commission's environmental specialist, said that by definition, city ordinances are appealed to court.

Chester Brook Road resident Edward Stanton stood before the council with his visibly pregnant wife, Sheila, by his side. He would like to put an addition on his house, he said, for the twins Sheila is expecting.

"Basically, I can't do anything to it if this (ordinance) passes," he said. "You can't raise your kids in Waltham. You have to move out....I just don't think it's fair. What about the humans?"

Riverview Avenue resident Joris Naiman said his house falls under the purview of the wetlands ordinance, but he approves of it. He pointed out that many cities and towns have enacted similar bylaws.

"In order to get your property values preserved, you've got to live in the kind of community that preserves them," he said.

posted by prof_booty | 10:43 AM