AMHERST — A backyard with woods and a brook on an Orchard Valley property has become what the homeowner calls a peaceful oasis for contemplative thought and meditation, or simply walks through nature.
With footbridges over the creek and wood chip paths, and selective pruning of trees and trimming of saplings, Kim Harwood sees his work as being a steward of the land that offers views of Hadley meadows to the west.
For town officials, though, Harwood’s extensive alterations to the landscape behind his Pondview Drive home, including hardening stream banks with stones, removing vegetation along the riverfront and filling in wetlands, is a violation of both the Massachusetts Wetlands Act and the town’s wetlands bylaw.
Harwood has been warned that, without bringing his property into compliance, he could be subject, under state law, to a fine of $25,000 and a prison sentence of up to two years, a potential infraction that has prompted him to create a change.org petition calling for residents to rally on his behalf.
Assistant Town Manager David Ziomek, director of conservation and development, said that there is no option for Harwood other than to have the work he has done reviewed by the Conservation Commission and to take various corrective actions.
“In short, we became aware that Kim had done significant landscaping work on the back of his property that includes a perennial stream,” Ziomek said.
Ziomek and Wetlands Administrator Erin Jacques met with Harwood in May to explain what needed to happen, and a follow-up letter was sent in June by Conservation Commission Chairman Brett Butler informing Harwood to file a request for determination of applicability. This request, Ziomek said, would provide a way for doing some of the work legally.
The town’s enforcement is specific as to the violations, including unpaved pedestrian walkways with wood chip surfaces that have been installed within riverfront, wetlands and buffer zone areas.
Actions to fix this include removing wood chips from one wetland area, considered wetland fill, replanting locations of the trees that were cut on the property without a permit, removing wood chips and crushed stone along the bank of the stream and replacing this with seeding or planting of native herbaceous shade-tolerant plants, shrubs and/or trees.
So far, though, Harwood is rejecting the cease-and-desist order and the order to file plans, and his petition is “demanding that the Conservation Commission drop this ridiculous case and get on with the important work of protecting wetlands that are actually in danger.”
“There have been no compelling arguments from the Commission supporting that damage has actually been done to the wetland, just that it is not in compliance with wetlands regulations,” Harwood writes in his change.org posting. “My rights as a landowner appear to be irrelevant to the case, and the fate of my own property completely out of my control.”
The 50-year town resident argued in a response to the commission that he is preserving the natural environment.
“What I have done is to simply manage my backyard to make the most of the resource for human enjoyment,” he wrote in response to the commission letter. “I have no intention of undoing any of the work, or of going through a tedious retroactive permitting process.”
Harwood has also called out the anonymous complainant who brought the matter to the attention of the commission.
Ziomek said he doesn’t know how the complaint was made or who made it, but there was no choice for the commission to issue an enforcement order once it was apprised of the situation. Whether a homeowner, a developer or the town’s conservation staff, everyone follows the same rules, he said.
“Kim is not being singled out,” Ziomek said. “This is exactly the way we would treat anyone. We have to apply laws and regulations equally.”
His change.org petition can be found at bit.ly/37tVpiB/.
