To the editor:
After reading the ‘More wetland regulations seem unlikely,? article (The Citizen, Nov. 3, page 4) my first thought of Mr. Palulian is how pompous can he be? First and foremost, one of the most disturbing statements Palulian made was, ‘I challenge anybody to show us in our decision making process we were effectively asleep at the switch, causing a negative impact on the wetlands and affecting the quality of life.? The board and Palulian had a group of concerned citizens who spent their time to compile and present documented research that a change of regulations should be considered. Instead of taking some time to review these requests, research these requests, debate these requests or at least take them seriously, Palulian becomes defensive and immediately turns this into a challenge. This usually means someone is hiding something or they really don’t care what you have to say.
As you wish, Mr. Palulian, I accept your challenge. First, perception is reality and it is the individual’s perception that makes it their reality. If you want to change their perception, which in turn can change their reality, then present something valid that will change their perception. You do not have the power to just say it is not the case and then to challenge them to prove you wrong, that does not change their perception and you have not done your job.
Second, you offer facts over what has taken place over the last 15 years and state, ‘less than 5 acres had disrupted wetlands and they were issued a DEQ permit.? They are called ‘protected? for a reason, so they can’t be disturbed. Every acre counts, next time will it be it was only 10 acre or 20 acres or? you know, Mr. Palulian, like it is just a few buffalo, and then a few more, and then where did they go?
Stop hiding behind the current regulations and the DEQ approvals. You are in your position to make sure the best decisions are being made on the community’s behalf. If the regulations need to be changed and the DEQ needs to be challenged, then do it, it is your job. I can say this because I did challenge the DEQ on the Hunter Ridge development on Granger Road; they said that decision was difficult and it may have been the wrong one. I took them through the appeal process, but when it came time for court I could not get anyone from the township to help.
Finally, and the most disturbing comment, ‘Show me where the parking lot runoff has caused poisoning or damaging of an adjacent wetland.? You actually need to see something damaged, poisoned or killed before you consider changing current rules and regulations, now that is a major problem. In order to continue with our challenge here is what you can do, so we can ‘show you.? Take two garden hoses, set one 25 feet from a stream and set one 100 feet from a stream. Turn them both on with equal volume of water coming out, now observe what happens with the water, time of travel, disbursement and absorption. Now add a little oil, gas and liquid fertilizer, and watch where it enters the stream. Now you drink from the stream adjacent to the hose 25 feet away and I will drink from the one 100 feet away. Once you get over being sick I would like to see if 25 feet is still enough.
Mr. Palulian and the Board, you owe the group DONT an apology and a serious review. You are speaking out of one side of your mouth when you say you want input and out of the other side you immediately shut them down.
David Saroli
Brandon Township