A 350 acre ecological preserve on Manchester's Hackett Hill property, donated to The Nature Conservancy by the City in 2001, now appears threatened by development on its northern, as well as southern, border.The "Preserve" contains forested wetlands or swamps, home to the Atlantic white cedars, black gum trees and giant rhododendrons for which the property is best known.

A 1999 EPA/DES Compliance Order called for protection of the swamps, but neverthelesss permitted the City to make plans for a "corporate park" on other portions of the 800+ acre property. Much of this development would lie in close proximity to the Preserve's southwestern boundary. Strenuous opposition to the corporate park project surfaced at a public meeting in November, 2000. A vote has not yet been taken on the project's master plan, and more recently the City has concentrated on development of its downtown - an approach in keeping with opinions expressed at a public hearing on the corporate park.

The Compliance Order also established that the City act "in good faith" and extend the Preserve by purchasing additional conservation land near its northwest boundaries. Most of this property was owned by "Optima Health" - a coalition of Manchester's two hospitals. In 2001, as a result of a disaffiliation of the coalition, 9 hospital-owned lots were consolidated and reconfigured and 6 subdivisions of the property were created. The EPA/DES/City identified several of these lots which it would like to buy. However, it became increasingly obvious that the hospitals were extremely profit-motivated and intended to sell much of their land to developers.

In August, 2001, at two meetings of Manchester's Board of Mayor and Aldermen, the Waterford Corporation came forth with a a plan for residential development to be located on two lots of the hospital-owned property. The project (Waterford Place) called for 8 three story luxury apartment buildings and 80 single family homes on the larger lot (located north of Countryside Boulevard, a road north of the Hackett Hill property), and 40 single family homes on the smaller lot (located south of Countryside Boulevard.) An overview of the project had been presented to the Manchester Planning Board in July. The137 acre project was considered by some members to be harmful to the environment, cause overcrowding of the city's schools and worsen the area's traffic problems.

There were a number of difficulties with the Waterford proposal. Both lots are heavily forested and massive deforestation would occur if the lots were developed. Buildings on both lots would be dangerously close to wetlands. This situation is especially important in the case of the smaller lot because it is within in the watershed of wetlands which are nearly contiguous with the Preserve wetlands, and similar in composition to them. For this reason, the smaller lot had been one of the lots considered appropriate for purchase by the City.

The hospitals, however, were willing to sell the smaller lot to the developer, who felt the success of the entire project depended upon this acquisition. Furthermore, the developer wanted the lot to be rezoned - an arrangement which would allow him to build more homes on it - and the hospitals supported this request. Two public meetings of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen were held concerning the rezoning/development plans. At the meetings, it became apparent that if the hospitals-developer proposal was not adopted there would be retribution, i.e., no land would be sold to the City for conservation purposes. Speakers from the aldermanic board and the public noted the threat-like nature of the proposal.They also expressed concerns about impacts of the development on schools, traffic and wetlands.

Following the meetings, the issue was referred to the Bills on Second Readings Committee. At a subsequent meeting, the Committee listened briefly to the recommendation of Bob MacKenzie, Planning Director, that the rezoning/development project be approved. Mr. MacKenzie noted that the developer would make financial arrangements to provide for impacts on schools and traffic and it was promised that any harm to wetlands would be prevented by the use of "best management practices." The committee then approved the proposal. As the lawyer for the developer, Atty.Stebbins, left the room, members of the committee called out "Good Luck" and "Make us proud of you."

Plans to develop the apartment complex portion of the project then proceeded with great rapidity. A conceptual plan for the buildings was presented to the Manchester Planning Board on December 12. Unfortunately there was little public awareness of this part of the Planning Board meeting. The discussion concerning the Countryside Boulevard development was held near midnight, there were few members of the public remaining to hear it, and the Planning Board then closed the issue. Subsequently the Board voted on the issue on February 28. The vote was 7-0 to approve the apartment complex development.

The relationship of Phase 2 of Waterford's project, the construction of 115 single-family homes can be visualized by a MAP of the lands north of the Hackett Hill property. Plans for Phase 2 were presented to the Planning Board at a public meeting on June 13, and were soundly criticized by the Sierra Club. Subsequently the Manchester Planning Board considered the project at six of its meetings and on October 24, finally voted approval of the development.