One reason why Newtown is so attractive - both scenically and socially - is that generations of its citizen/servants have planned ahead for the public interests of their town and have guided its growth according to that plan. Our democratic system generously accommodates private interests and enterprises because, ultimately, we all live private lives and appreciate the freedoms of independent thought and action accorded by our system of government. When public and private interests clash, however, the best laid plans are tested along with the will of a community to grow with intention.

One such clash has played out recently in the context of public hearings by the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) on issues associated with a cluster housing development on property on Mt Pleasant Road called Rochambeau Woods. The parcel borders Taunton Lake, a spring-fed jewel of a lake closely guarded by the private property owners that surround it.

The development has been proposed to meet the provisions of Residential Open Space Development (ROSD) regulations promulgated by the Borough Zoning Commission four years ago. These regulations are designed to allow some concessions on housing density by special permit in exchange for the preservation by conservation easement of at least 50 percent of the overall parcel as open space. In the case of Rochambeau Woods, the 29 condominium housing units are situated near Mt Pleasant Road on the 29-acre site and away from the property's 450-foot lake frontage, apparently using the regulations as they were designed, to protect sensitive areas.

The issue of prime concern to lake residents and others interested in its well-being is not so much the contamination of the lake from runoff, erosion, and other associated development impacts. They were most concerned about providing access to the lake to a new population of lake residents. So, instead of hearing concerns about petroleum runoff from parking lots, or the integrity of the groundwater or the efficacy of sewer disposal systems, the wetlands panel found itself considering the impact of another threat to the lake: human beings.

We agree that a crowd of people can degrade the aesthetics of sylvan land and waterscapes, but we are not sure that the mere presence of people is a wetlands issue. At one point during a hearing on April 27, the acting chairman on the IWC expressed her opposition to the plan if the developers put picnic tables near the lake. She said the picnic area should be near the condos, where, according to a civil engineer working for the developers, there is no view of the lake. We're not sure the suggestion saves the lake, but we are pretty sure it will ruin the picnic. (Incidentally, the ROSD regulations specifically allow picnic tables in the preserved open space areas.)

If the people of Newtown do not want more people to have access to Taunton Lake, they should resist the creation of regulations that allow that to happen. (Only one resident attended the hearing on ROSD regulations when they were created.) Reconciling the public interest in developing housing strategies to preserve open space with private quality of life interests is an important goal worthy of vigorous debate as part of planning for the future. Trying to work that clash out during the implementation of an agreed-upon set of regulations, however, can quickly devolve into a fight over exclusivity and picnic tables.