Dear Editor:

Based on photographic evidence presented by abutters to the tidal shore/wetlands and in written testimony from long-term owners of the property before Spinney’s acquisition, the area in question was a naturally occurring tidal marsh shore. Since this time, a large wedge of the tidal marsh habitat clearly went from natural and undisturbed, to largely eliminated. under Spinney’s ownership. The photographic evidence presented several times to the Selectmen, the Planning Board and to the Appeals Board clearly documents unequivocally the wholesale removal of tidal habitat including the underlying silt and by all analysis also shows the presence of gravel that was placed to harden the otherwise native mud substrate.

Now, we have an applicant who is seeking to create a new use that could only be argued for because of the previous land use, and alteration of the tidal marsh/wetland. Making a request to build upon an existing and arguably unpermitted alteration is not at all what the Shoreland Zoning had in mind and is unacceptable. Concocting a new proposal and framing associated on site work as “improving” upon the conditions created by this earlier wetland damage/removal is just plain false and needs to come to an immediate end. There is no improving upon a naturally occurring tidal marsh.

Protecting such a special resource requires that all of us accept a small element of sacrifice in order to protect something larger. This is not about trying to infringe on any individual as much as it is asking everyone to make a small sacrifice for a greater good. That’s what environmental rules and regulation is all about. This is all about drawing a line that ensures that this very special river remains special long after all of us are gone and a whole new generation of people are around to appreciate what we did to protect this river.

Mark and Dale DesMeules

Alna