Annexation muddies Greenwich planning waters

If planning matters in eastern Greenwich weren’t complex enough, there’s now a monkey wrench in the works that could serve only to muddy the waters.

Kings County councillor Chris Parker, who represents Greenwich, announced to his colleagues at the Tuesday, Oct. 2 council session he had been told by a member of Wolfville town council that an in-camera (closed door) meeting had occurred where the possible annexation of Greenwich had been discussed. Parker said the purpose would be for the town to protect farmland in the eastern end of Greenwich from development.

Parker said there is a member of Wolfville council actively pursuing this for political gain and a group of residents from Greenwich opposed to the development of farmland had approached Wolfville council. Parker said planning matters in Greenwich had to be dealt with because the group of concerned residents is dividing the community.

However, a representative of the group of Greenwich residents was quick to dismiss the allegation as untrue and later said that Parker had smeared them all with his comments. She said he should be made to reveal his source from Wolfville council when making such allegations in open public forums.

Although Wolfville Mayor Bob Stead says there was a discussion of cluster housing in eastern Greenwich proposed in a consultant’s report commissioned by the county at a recent in-camera session, he said the town has no interest in annexing Greenwich and council has enough on its collective plate to deal with. He said the group of Greenwich residents hadn’t approached them.

Parker contends there were no grounds for holding such a meeting in-camera, but Stead said town council had to deal with a matter that might be eligible for solicitor-client privilege. That gave council the right under the Municipal Government Act to hold the session.

It seems reasonable that Wolfville council would want a clear understanding of planning matters along their border, but word leaked into the community that they were discussing annexation.

There seems to be more questions than answers to this matter. Parker said he fielded a dozen calls from concerned constituents. As their county councillor, it’s understandable he wanted to know if Wolfville council had discussed annexation. He said he had a reliable source on Wolfville council that such a discussion had taken place.

But why would a member of Wolfville council share privileged details of an in-camera session with Parker, especially if Parker planned to share this information with the public?

Another question is why Parker decided to announce this information during a county council meeting? Bringing out what had been discussed at Wolfville’s in-camera session in an open public forum was viewed by some of his colleagues as being in bad taste and a move that could only cause hard feelings.

Also, if the group of Greenwich residents concerned with farmland development didn’t approach Wolfville council, why did Parker insist such a meeting occurred? The group and the mayor both deny it.

Even if Wolfville council did discuss the issue of annexation, it appears there is no political will to pursue the idea. Therefore, why not let the matter go instead of blowing it up into a controversy that appears to have little substance. We fail to see the purpose or benefit.