Annisquam-Bay View Woodlands Association
Noel Mann and Daan Sandee, 12 Dorset Drive, 283-4778
James Groves, 50 Revere Street, 283-2257
Bill and Linda Saunders, 52 Bennett Street, 281-3985
City of Gloucester Planning Board
Paul Lundberg, Chairman
3 Pond Road
January 22, 2007
The developer's proposal for a single access into the proposed Annisquam
Woods subdivision creates a very dangerous situation.
The Rules & Regulations, etc., say a dead-end street cannot exceed 600 feet
in length.
4.3.4 Dead-End Streets
a. Where in the opinion of the Planning Board through streets are not
needed for adequate fire protection and traffic circulation, dead-end
streets may be used. Said streets shall not exceed six hundred (600)
feet in length.
It is specifically explained here that any dead-end street may have a
problem with adequate fire protection and traffic circulation.
The length of the dead-end street in this development should be counted
from Revere St. Revere St nominally has a second access via Brierwood
Street, though this is narrow, winding, and potholed.
From Revere St along Hutchins Ct to the end of Driveway B is 2,600 feet.
Just about half a mile. With the proposed new section of Hutchins Ct
and the two fire roads, that would mean a total of 1200 feet of duplicate
roadways, leaving 1400 feet of single road.
The applicant has pointed out that no single section of single road within
the development is longer than 600 feet. This is irrelevant. In the
matter of the risk of a dead-end street being blocked, what counts is
the total length of the dead-end street system.
The probability of a blockage of the road depends on the total
length of single road - here, 1400 feet. The magnitude of the problem
resulting from such a blockage depends on the length of the road behind
it - here, up to 2600 feet. If a truck gets stuck in the first curve of
Hutchins Court, it doesn't matter how many fire roads are behind it. The
entire system is inaccessible, and it is half a mile to the last house
on Driveway B.
This 2600-foot road is narrow (20 feet wide over its entire length), curved,
many grades (up to 8%) with frequent grade changes, no sidewalk over
much of its length, and no street lighting. Heavy vegetation, which
cannot be cleared because much of it is in protected open space, makes
for poor visibility. Also, it has high banks as it has to curve around
the terrain.
The three sections of double road are totally inadequate for emergency
vehicles.
The first section of double road is where the new section of Hutchins Ct
will parallel the old section, to bypass a hill. Approximately at the end
of Hutchins Ct as it is, there will be a cut-through to the new road, to
allow the old section of Hutchins Ct to be used as emergency access.
This section starts with a 20-degree upslope. This is the main reason the
new section of Hutchins Ct was designed. At the end it narrows to 10 feet,
and there is a curve with a 7-degree downslope to join the new Hutchins Ct.
There is no way a fire truck can make this last curve.
The second section is Fire Road A.
This starts with a 12% upgrade. At the end, it has an abrupt grade change
from -6.71% to +3.0% with no vertical curve provided, 10 feet before its
emergence on the (more or less horizontal) Driveway A. A fire truck with its
long overhang will hit bottom. Also, the curve onto Driveway A is so tight
that the fire truck won't be able to make it. There is no room for
improvement as you are constrained by
the property line on the inside of the curve, and by "protected open space"
(wetland buffer zone) on the opposite side of Driveway A. In addition,
there is a six-foot bank on the inside of the curve, meaning that the
fire truck can't make it even if it ignores pavement and property lines.
The third section is Fire Road B.
This is the worst one. To enable this road to be built, seventeen feet of
a mountain top are blasted away over a considerable area. So much for
"not changing the contours of the landscape". Even with this obstacle removed,
the fire road has a downgrade of 17%, changing to 7.45% and then abruptly
to 0% when emerging onto the roundabout at the end of Driveway A. Here,
again, the fire truck will hit bottom. And it is doubtful that the fire
truck will be able to make the turn onto the roundabout.
The fire roads are unpaved. This will never do on a slope. Some steep sections
will act as a gully, draining a fairly large area. They are unpaved in order
to be permeable, and if they are permeable they will be washed out. Even if
they were paved, they would still need maintenance.
We know about steep roads on Cape Ann, paved and unpaved. We live here.
The fire roads are not intended to be used. Use is unlikely, as one is a
long detour, and the other has an impossibly steep grade. But if they are
never used for driving, then people will use them for parking, or just for
storing junk. This will have to be policed.
To summarize, the single main access road is half a mile long and of poor
quality, while the proposed emergency fire roads are unusable.
The Fire Chief has reported to the Planning Board that he didn't see a problem.
But the Fire Chief's report is dated December 15, at which time the
engineering details were not yet available to him. He should reconsider
his opinion.
The Fire Chief also mentions sprinklers. We have said before that sprinklers
do not help in this situation. First, water pressure standards for
sprinkers are considerably higher than for normal residential water service -
and we know water pressure is inadequate. Second, the real danger here is
forest fires, and sprinklers do not stop a forest fire.
In an earlier report, the Fire Chief recommended clearing vegetation 100 feet
around the buildings. Unfortunately, this clashes with the developer's
promise to the Conservation Commission to leave 100 feet around the wetlands
untouched. The developer may see no problem in promising the Fire Chief to
clear the land, and to the Conservation Commission to leave it untouched.
As long as he gets his permit.
There are two other major problems concerning fire safety: water pressure
and the intermittently closed fire station.
The Board has said repeatedly that problems with facilities outside of the
project area are not its concern. But you can't get away from facts. To
grant a permit for a development which includes a half-mile dead-end road
system, with or without the legal question of whether it requires a waiver,
is at the discretion of the Board. The developer cannot demand it. And
to grant
this permit in an area with insufficient water pressure and uncertain fire
protection service is the height of irresponsibility. There are 37 homes
involved (9 existing and 28 planned.) That's around a hundred people. And
what you are being asked to permit is in effect a death trap.
For a year and a half the applicant has tried to find a solution to bridge
the valley to Tufts Lane, only to reach the conclusion that it couldn't
be done, which is what the neighbors had been telling him from the start.
Now he is trying a design with a half-mile dead-end street, which is still
difficult from an engineering standpoint, and absurd from legal, practical,
and fire-safety reasons. It is time that the Board, if not the applicant,
comes to the inevitable conclusion: it can't be done. There are plenty of
places on Cape Ann where it is impossible to build, and this is one of them.
Daan Sandee
Annisquam-Bay View Woodlands Association
12 Dorset Drive
