GREENWOOD — Residents and taxpayers questioned the Planning Board on a proposed land-management-standards ordinance on Wednesday, with supporters saying it was a necessary protective measure and opponents arguing that it amounted to overregulation.

Selectmen pulled the ordinance from the agenda for the annual town meeting in March, but also accepted a petition from resident Alan Hamilton to have the issue go to vote. The Planning Board and members of an advisory committee have since made amendments to the ordinance, which is proposed to replace a current document that focuses on lot sizes and building heights and is less than a page in length.

The stated purpose of the ordinance is to allow for orderly growth and appropriate land uses, and also to conserve natural resources. In addition to outlining the process of getting a permit, the ordinance divides the town into village, general growth, woodland and resort development districts and includes a land-use table stipulating whether development can take place in the districts and what steps might need to be taken to do so.

No vote has been scheduled on the ordinance. Two proposed overlay districts, seeking to regulate development along Greenwood Road and on hillsides and ridgelines to reduce impact and maintain natural beauty, have been set aside for separate votes as amendments to the ordinance.

“Those two were the hot-button issues,” said David Brainard, vice chairman of the Planning Board. “So they were pulled out so the basic ordinance would have a chance if those didn’t.”

Dennis Doyon, a Greenwood taxpayer and vice chairman of the Bethel Board of Selectmen, described the ordinance as “indiscriminate use of eminent domain” and “an orchestrated effort to rob people of the use of their private land.”

Doyon charged that the ordinance would lead to increased property taxes and a reduction in development. He also said the ordinance would necessitate a full-time code enforcement officer and regulate too many aspects of ridgeline development, such as outdoor lighting, in an attempt to reduce visibility.

Resident Loretta Mikols said the ordinance does not address issues such as residences with junkyards on the property. She also said some restrictions, including those preventing expansion if light or vibrations or other nuisances are increased, would be impossible to enforce.

“What this ordinance does is effectively turn Greenwood into one big subdivision,” she said.

Resident Monika Burk said the ordinance would lead to increased restrictions on some landowners without preventing violations.

“People who have money, they’ll go in and pay the fines,” Burk said. “It just stops us.”

Hamilton asked attendees at the hearing to remember why they chose to live in the town.

“Part of that reason was based on what it looks like,” he said.

Henry Stewart, a resident who supports the ordinance, passed out a three-page document prior to the hearing charging nonresident developers and large landowners with trying to influence the town’s land policies. He said the ordinance seeks to put protections on ridgelines similar to those in place on shore properties.

“Our most precious resources in Greenwood are our ponds and our hills,” Stewart said. “It does not prevent building, it only regulates it.”

[email protected]