Planning & Development Hearing: Tufts/Carrigan Project July 24, 2006
Foreword: This is the first opportunity for the citizens of Gloucester to
publicly address the Planning and Development (P&D) board on this project.
The public input is that this project must be denied. Environmental, public
safety, health, infrastructure, and community impact have all been pushed
into a dark corner shielded from the light of day. Now is the time to shed
light on these issues, which if not addressed, will come back to haunt us
forever. This is the wrong development, in the wrong place, at the wrong
time. It is a disaster in the making.
In meetings where the public could not comment, this project was presented
by the developer as a great model for cluster development, and an excellent
example of 'smart growth.' The developer has had enormous advantages in
promoting this project. The first advantage is by skillful use of the
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meetings. The TAG meetings provide a forum for
the developer to present his project in the best possible light without any
constructive criticism from the public. TAG gives the developer a unique
opportunity to mix presentation with public relations to move his project
forward.
On April 3, 2006, the developer was denied a permit to tie into the disaster
known as the STEP system. Accompanied by his attorney and a legal brief he
marched into the Mayor's office and behind closed doors convinced the mayor
to overrule his own experts: the city engineer, the DPW director and to
reverse an earlier position of the city solicitor. Linda Lowe was quoted on
freezing permits for the STEP system: GDT, Feb. 10, 2006 "The STEP
prohibition requires no further study, it's been studied." This document has
never seen the light of day; it too, has been pushed into that dark corner to
be forgotten. Doesn't the public have a right to know why the mayor made this
unusual decision? In contrast to the mayor's action in this instance; on
April 20, 2006, when the mayor went before the city council with the Sewer
Task Force Report; he said that issuance of sewer permits was left in the
hands of the city's experts with the authority to issue permits and he did
not get involved at that level.
Creative interpretation of the rules and regulations and special treatment
has been the standard of this project along with avoiding the real issues.
For example, the wildlife of Cape Ann does not know of property rights and
deeds, but they do know habitat and have occupied this site for centuries.
This site consists of 32 acres of virgin woodland that connects wildlife to
Dogtown Common yet there has been no Wildlife Impact Study. The developer
states that the project saves open space yet the reality is that he selected
the high ground of the site because the rest of the property is physically
unfit for development. Not addressed is Gloucester's equivalent of the "Big
Dig": tens of thousands of cubic yards of materials will be moved, tops of
hills will be blasted away, the largest private cement bridge on Cape Ann
will be built: how safe and how structurally sound will this bridge be? What
is the environmental impact?
Not addressed are the three years of noise pollution created by drilling
equipment, the blasting of hill tops, the rock crushing machines constantly
hammering away. The traffic and safety problems created by heavy construction
equipment clogging roads that were built for stagecoaches. The roads will be
inaccessible for police and emergency equipment let alone the residents. How
realistic is the developer's traffic study? How safe will we be before and
after the project? Adding 30 homes only increases the risk. The nearest
full-time fire protection is over 3 miles away. Can fire protection be
assured when water pressure that is below state requirements already plagues
the area from Bennett Street to Revere Street? How will pumping 10,000
gallons of effluent a day through the STEP system impact the already high
maintenance and failure prone system? What if the development's connection
to the STEP line breaks and pours 10,000 gallons of sewerage into the
wetlands when it is pumping at night? Who is going to pay for that
environmental disaster? Although mentioned in prior Planning Board meetings
as a work-in-progress; where is the condominium agreement that should be a
required condition of any permitting process? This private association is
required to maintain and plow the private road, control traffic, collect its
own rubbish, maintain the sewerage and pumping station and any other
responsibilities deemed necessary. All this has to be in writing.
Developers have a long history in Gloucester of promising everything and
doing nothing. In the GDT, Dec. 12, 2005, James McKenna, the mayor's chief
of staff, said private interests do not always work best for the public. "By
nature, (private interests) want to do it as cheaply as possible and it might
cut corners."
This project must be denied.
James C. Groves, VP Annisquam/Bay View Woodlands Assoc
50 Revere Street
City
