Dear Editor:

Alna residents will be voting to accept or reject changes to their Shoreland Zoning Ordinance on March 27. Proponents of the changes have yet to persuade many of us that they’re necessary—and that they’ll bring improvements, not make matters worse. Fast-tracking amendments without seeking public buy-in isn’t a sound strategy for change.

The amended ordinance would give Alna’s Planning Board broad authority to allow permanent, water-dependent structures in and along the town’s waterways. By not including guidelines, the proposal opens up a host of concerns about what will—or won’t—be allowed. In addition to docks and ramps, water-dependent structures include those built for extracting irrigation or drinking water, for channeling rainwater runoff; they can include marinas or fish processing plants. Will the citizen-volunteers on the planning board be willing to take on the battles that result from easing these rules?

Meaningful change begins with a clear sense of the problem. Once the community agrees that a problem exists, public dialogue can help determine what changes will bring the best result for the town. Any such process should consider how changes would impact all waterways and the needs of Alna residents broadly, not just one water body, or a handful of property owners.

Alna did hold a public hearing on March 10. Too bad it occurred after a solution was put forward and the town warrant was drafted: putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

The Shoreland Zoning Ordinance is Alna’s backbone when it comes to our ponds, streams and river. It establishes that Alna residents want to preserve the swimmable water of Pinkham Pond; the unspoiled character of Trout Brook; the salmon, sturgeon, otters, and waterfowl that inhabit our serene stretch of the Sheepscot. Until we’re convinced that change is necessary, we shouldn’t vote to weaken our commitment to Alna’s waterways. Please vote no on Alna Article 27.

Carol Gardner

Alna