Letter to the Editor, by Jim Groves, Vice-President, AB Woodlands Association.
The Annisquam/ Bay View Woodlands Association has opposed the Tufts/Carrigan
project for a number of factual reasons and is not swayed by the mayor's
turnabout and selective endorsement of the project by overriding his City
Solicitor and Sewerage Task Force's fact-filled recommendation not to expand
the STEP system.
The city is going to hire an expert to assess the impact of adding the
30-unit development to the STEP system. We can expect that the 'expert' will
conclude that the sewerage extension is not "statistically significant" and
his finding will put a stamp of approval on the project. The real 'experts'
are already on the mayor's task force and their findings are based upon years
of personal experience in trying to keep the STEP system workable and their
earlier assessment is the true one. The $300,000. 'sweetener' offered by the
developer is certainly an eye-opener and the threat of going to court is
nothing new.
The administration has finally acknowledged that the original plan of the
STEP system was not intended to be extended. However, we are now hearing the
words: 'connection' and 'expansion' carefully massaged to fit into the
ordinance. To call a sewer line that is about 14 football fields long and
serves 30 homes a 'connection' is really a stretch of the imagination,
literally and legally. The definition of the legal meaning of connection and
expansion for this development should be clearly defined by the court not by
the developer's legal representatives. More than one Gloucester ordinance
has been overruled by the court.
Last fall I spoke with Allan Moir, DPW director in Kennebunkport, ME because
in 1990 he had been invited to Gloucester by former councilor Joe Kaknes to
speak about Kennebunkport's experience with the STEP system. He advised
Gloucester not to proceed with STEP because, after their short-lived
experience with STEP, they replaced it: that was only 80 units not
Gloucester's 1200. All of Mr. Moir's comments were duplicated by the Sewer
Task Force's findings. In addition, we should bear in mind that the average
life span of a STEP system is 15 years (EPA statistics) and we are now near
that point in time. The mayor's unusual decision is one that will come back
to haunt us, probably, in the form of a replacement conventional system
costing at least $30 million.
There are more reasons to reject this project than just the sewerage issue.
Water pressure in the proposed build area and other parts of Bay View and
Lanesville is perilously close to being permanently below the required
minimum for fire protection. The state minimum water pressure at the faucet
is targeted at 20 pounds per square inch (psi). Residents of Bennett Street,
Tufts Lane, Revere Street and Hutchins Court have had measurements as low as
15 psi for extended periods. The state will require the city to address this
problem immediately - it is a fire safety violation. One of the proposed
fixes for this low water pressure is to raise the Plum Cove water tower by at
least 10 feet, possibly more. I am sure that this will cost more than the
$300,000. sewer sweetener and there is no guarantee that raising the tower
will fix the low water pressure problem.
Here is another major safety issue: the antiquated narrow feeder roads
(Dennison Street, Bennett Street, Revere Street, Brierwood Street, and
Hutchins Court) that lead to this project. The feeder roads are long and
narrow, with steep inclines and under the minimum width of 20'. These roads
will not allow safe access for fire engines, ambulances, and school buses.
The mayor's task force recognized that the 1.5 miles of substandard feeder
roads is a valid reason to deny this project. The Bay View fire station is
closed most of the time; so the nearest fire station is Central Station,
which is over 4 miles away, and when there is snow on the ground Bennett
Street is a nightmare. This is the perfect recipe for a disaster.
The administration has artfully dodged the city council and public debate on
issues like this one. The time for council involvement and public debate on
this project is here and now. The city ordinance, Section 5.2, Earth
Removal, requires that the applicant seek a special permit from the city
council before proceeding forward with the project. This permitting
requirement allows the council and the public the opportunity to review, not
only the project, but the mayor's unusual decision.
James C. Groves
Revere Street, Gloucester
