Richard Gaines has published an informative and objective
article in
the Gloucester Daily Times. He came for a site visit and was present
at the AB Woodlands meeting of December 76, 2005.
The AB Woodlands Association would like to add some comments.
-
First, the headline "Annisquam divided" is misleading. Annisquam
appears to be pretty much united. Virtually everyone present at our
last meeting signed our petition. Carrigan may try to present himself
as being part of Annisquam, but he appears to have little support.
-
Second, we have to protest against Carrigan's effrontery in calling his
proposal environmentally friendly, and his threatening that another developer
might do worse. There is nothing environmentally friendly about it.
He is destroying a 20-acre area of undisturbed woodland that forms the
link between Langsford Pond and the protected areas of the Norton Memorial
Forest, and Dogtown beyond. It is true that he is leaving 66% of the
parcel (not 70%, as he is quoted in the article) undisturbed, but much
of this is in the northern section, which through a combination of road
access, wetlands, and terrain is difficult to develop anyway, and which is
isolated and does not provide a link with other protected areas. In the
main parcel, the bits left untouched in between his development are too
fragmented to be of environmental value. Of the original 20 acres, about
three acres remain attached to the Norton Memorial Forest, and about eight
acres border on Langsford pond. But there is no connection between these
two pieces.
His threat that another developer might do worse is therefore mostly an empty
one. He may base it on the fact that he leaves the buffer zones around
the protected pieces of wetland, around 40%, intact, but he is limited
in his use of these areas by regulations that give the Conservation
Commission authority to stop him doing anything that might harm the
wetlands.
He says he is voluntarily restricting himself to 30 units, although he is
entitled to more. But cluster development regulations state that the
maximum size of a cluster is 10 units (he has three clusters), so for
more units he would have to go to four clusters, which would need a
disproportionately bigger space, so even when encroaching on the buffer
zones he wouldn't gain much.
The most a less scrupulous developer could achieve is 4 clusters (40 units.)
On the one hand, the difference to the environment would be minimal ; the
essential issue is his access road which cuts off Langsford Pond. On the
other hand, any developer is limited by totally different problems (sewer
and road access), so claiming he is restricting himself voluntarily is just
like a politician taking the credit for not doing what he couldn't do anyway.
Essex County Greenbelt classifies this property in the most environmentally
valuable of four classifications. It is (a) large (b) undeveloped (c)
valuable to wildlife and (d) adjacent to protected areas. And developing it
would also diminish the environmental value of Langsford Pond, as no longer
connecting with other areas.
Greenbelt has presented him with a counterproposal, which would effectively
halve the project by doing away with the Tufts Lane access and so saving the
environmentally valuable wildlife corridor. He has shown no interest in
this.
By cluster development regulations, he has to give a certain amount of the
parcel into conservation. Originally it was intended that Greenbelt would
have a conservation restriction, if not outright ownership. But now it is
intended for the city to hold the conservation restriction, which is much
less valuable. Experience with other properties has shown that the city
is not a great custodian for conservation land.
-
The article mentions the relevant problems with the sewer system: capacity,
design flaws, and maintenance. But it barely mentions the traffic issues.
The access roads (Dennison and Bennett St to the South, Revere St and
Hutchins Court to the North) plus the connecting road amount to a mile and
a half of roadway, nearly all of which is 20 ft wide (even after upgrading
Bennett St), below the width required by regulations. If this development
would be designed as the regulations require (if that were possible), it
would be a lot more expensive.
Finally, the most important issue not mentioned is the effect on the city
finances. An increase of the city tax base by an estimated fifteen
million dollars sounds nice, but it is doubtful whether there would be
any benefit after paying for the infrastructure and repairs to the shaky
sewer, not to mention the cost of schooling the kids in thirty homes.