Rezoning lake properties: questionable value

 When it comes to limiting development on land in the Northwest Corner, sometimes the proposed solution is worse than the problem.

 At a well-attended meeting last month of the Lake Wononscopomuc Association in Salisbury, members squared off in offering competing proposals on how to cope with development on the lake (known as Lakeville Lake) that puts too many nutrients into the water and thereby contributes to the growth of aquatic weeds.

 Two association members, Edward Erbacher and Bob Blank, want to limit future growth by rezoning all properties around the lake from one acre to two. The proposal would also increase the required distance of a home from the water from 75 to 125 feet and it would restrict the use of accessory buildings. Member Keith Ellis offered a counter-proposal addressing the specific issues related to the increased runoff that introduces more nutrients into the lake.

 There is no question that an increase of nutrients such a phosphorus is contributing significantly to the eutrophication of the lake. That process deprives the water of oxygen and encourages weed growth in a gorgeous body of water enjoyed by swimmers, fishermen and boaters who use the Town Grove, which has to be one of the nicest municipal parks in the nation.

 The question, of course, is how to control that growth and prevent the lake from reverting to a wetland. One idea floated five years ago was to introduce herbicides into the 350-acre lake. Those chemicals have been in use for several years in other area lakes, including Twin Lakes and Bantam Lake. But lake association members haven’t forgotten the specter of 2001, when a hearing on the subject drew an emotional crowd at the Salisbury Congregational Church and prompted association officials to drop the idea of using chemicals to combat the weeds. Now they are proceeding slowly but have revived the possibility of using the chemicals next year.

 However, the application of herbicides is a Band-Aid solution and does not really address the cause of weed growth. So association members are to be commended for proposing solutions that get at the core issue: how to limit the further introduction of nutrients into the lake? The rezoning proposal is no doubt well-intentioned but it raises a lot of questions. Is it necessary, for example, to take such a drastic step on a lakefront that is almost built out anyway?

 Furthermore, how wise is it to rezone land around the lake when such a step would turn dozens of properties of less than two acres into non-conforming uses? As anyone who owns a non-conforming property knows, the simple addition of a mud room or a garage requires an application for a variance and an expensive review process costing thousands of additional dollars.

 Ellis also raised questions about the impact rezoning would have on the assessments of those properties and whether lowered values might have an effect on revenue to the town treasury. Ellis wants to address the specific contributors to nutrient growth rather than a wholesale rezoning of the lake zone — a drastic step that would require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

 Among his solutions: a moratorium on future blacktopping of driveways in order to mitigate runoff by reducing the amount of non-permeable surfaces in the watershed. Under Ellis’ plan, the replacement of existing asphalt driveways would also be prohibited in favor of permeable surfaces such as crushed stone. In addition, Ellis wants a ban on fertilizers for lawns and gardens, a push to extend sanitary sewer service to the unsewered half of the lake and a financial impact study to "determine how any proposed zoning changes would decrease the appraised value in the Lakeside zoning areas."

 Ellis’s proposal make good sense, as did association President Bill Littauer’s suggestion that the two factions put their heads together to reconcile the proposals into a workable solution for one of shiniest gems in the town.