To the Editor:

Here is a novel idea.

What if the 20-60 Castle Hill property was not carved up into cul-de-sacs and another gated community, but protected as a space for the town people and Borough residents to enjoy?

It is some of the best unspoiled land in Newtown and is right here in the center of our town. It could be un-gated and therefore continue to be enjoyed by many more people than just the 117 families slated to have the sole use of the land. Allowing cyclists, walkers, history buffs, bird enthusiasts, or just nature lovers alike to enjoy the vistas and give thanks to the owners of this land who had the foresight and courage to allow the land to be left for the common good of the people. Further, it would pay respects towards the original intent of the land, keep it protected.

How is it that these two men, the developer and the owner of the land, get to determine the fate of this intact forest system? I’m sure the birds, salamanders, and trout lily’s would feel the same. To forever alter this highly evolved and functioning system is wrong on many ecological fronts and arrogant on the part of the perpetrators of this proposed destruction.

All around us are cleared tracts of land for the roughly 9,000 homes in our town, so why not give way to 117 more? Aside from the public safety (traffic) concerns and the direct conflict with the Plan of Conservation and Development, the contiguous nature of these two parcels is critical for conservation. This development will forever put a tarnish on the land, hearts, and memories of many of the people of Newtown who recognize the mistake of bringing in land clearing equipment to this land. Hopefully, if the developer and his partner do some soul searching, they will recognize that the town people are very much against this development. If a town vote were to be brought about, I’m certain this flawed plan would be struck down.

The area closest to the Lake has older growth trees such as red oak, black oak, and yellow birch along with an understory of mountain laurels, Christmas fern and various sedges. It is clear these forested areas would be losing even more of their critical buffers. These older growth forested areas need buffering in the form of meadows, shrub lands and new growth forests to remain intact. The presence of some of these plants found in this area adjacent to the lake gives us clues that for millennia there has been little disturbance.

A Floristic Quality Assessment determines the level of disturbance/preservation of the plant communities present. These older growth areas are even more critical now to protect, as climate scientists show it is the mature trees that sequester carbon at a much greater rate than developing ones.

To the land owner: Please bring your plan elsewhere and not let greed win over the wishes of the people and all our forest friends.

Dan Holmes

Newtown