To the Editor:

I used to live in a small town in Massachusetts. About 20 miles from Boston, it was in the process of transitioning from farms into a bedroom community.

It was flanked by two towns that had gone vastly different routes in development. One, to the north, had maintained tight control and was a mix of old and new houses, parks, a farmers’ market, and a community spirit that led to them managing their own electrical company — which restored power after a large snowstorm in 2009 in less than two days, while we had no power for 10 days.

The town to the west had been industrial, had obviously had minimal zoning, and was filled with houses on tiny lots. There were areas of struggling small businesses, and I knew people who wouldn’t patronize them because they were not comfortable in the neighborhoods. The whole town seemed blighted.

The town I lived in was beginning to follow the second town. The joke was that the head of the planning board never met a developer she didn't like. And the rest of the board simply followed her direction. I remember one instance when a member of the audience asked a board member why he voted the way he did, and he looked baffled and said, “She told me to.” He clearly didn’t even know what the issue was.

Developments were going up everywhere — the old farm next to our property was slated to be developed with over 200 houses on slabs, with no basements and no garages. Because the town didn’t have sewers in the area, the development needed to install its own septic system. Privately run, multiple-house septic systems have a much greater chance of failure than municipal, monitored systems, so the number of houses was cut back to 45. But it took neighbors banding together to get the change.

The development also led to problems with the newly rural residents. We had complaints about our rooster crowing and about the bleating of the lambs over a few days of weaning in summer. The road to the development was sited across from our neighbor’s drive and more than once in the winter he had a car slide into his yard — and almost into his barn.

It seems to me that Knox is at the point where it has to choose which route to go. We can preserve what we have — clean air, open spaces, great views — or we can build without consideration of the future of the town or the residents who live here.

It’s unfortunate that the town board seems willing to ignore the people who live here in favor of hypothetical future business people. The proposed business district at routes 156 and 157 is an example.

In spite of recommendations from the planning board and the conservation council against the zoning change, the town supervisor seems determined to push ahead. Between the karst geology in the area, which makes pollution a very real danger, and the dangerous curve on Route 156 where there have been numerous accidents, this seems a very bad idea.

At a meeting in the past year, Supervisor Vasilios Lefkaditis argued that the Highland Restaurant, which had been operating under a variance, could still be reopened although it had been unused for years (well over the 18 months that causes a variance to lapse). His argument was that, since the owners still paid taxes, the business hadn’t really closed. Nobody seemed to buy that argument, so now he is using a different approach and trying to rezone the whole area around the old restaurant.

I remember a case in the town I used live in. A restaurant opened in a residential area. They didn’t have variances, and the business was more or less ignored as it was open only one to two evenings each week.  Then the restaurant greatly expanded its opening hours. Then it added a B & B.

And the town did nothing, although the neighbors were very vocal, and the use was clearly illegal. The community went from being a harmonious place to live to one where people were awakened by a 1 a.m. closing. That neighborhood was greatly damaged.

Maybe it’s time to listen to the people who live in the affected area and don’t want the noise and traffic of a commercial district. And to the rest of the people in town who don’t really want to see more crashes on the Route  156 curve, or pollution in the watershed that might last longer than any of us will live. Maybe we should think more about people and stop writing them off as a cost of doing business.

Dee Woessner

Knox

Editor’s note: Dee Woessner chairs the Knox Democratic Committee. She also serves on the Knox Conservation Advisory Council.