The residential development plans
put forth by the Waterford Group, and sanctioned by the hospitals,
City planners and Conservation Commission, as well as by certain
members of the present and previous aldermanic boards, are badly
flawed. They have ethical shortcomings, disregard modern city
planning, downplay damage to the natural environment and, most
importantly, ignore the public's opinions.
In the 1990's investigators from the NH Natural Heritage Inventory suggested that "no further development occur north of Countryside Boulevard" for fear of degrading the natural communities found in the Atlantic white cedar swamp basins. Yet in 2002, plans for what can clearly be classified as "over-development" have been approved for this region.
When the behavior of certain elected and appointed city officials is closely scrutinized, it can be seen that both Phase I and Phase II of Waterford's development plans received support instead of being challenged. Clearly effects of the construction on traffic and city schools needed a more thorough examination than was provided, but more importantly possible harmful effects of the development on the Manchester Cedar Swamp, The Nature Conservancy's ecological preserve, were not given full consideration.
Three major development complexes - the existing Countryside Village apartment complex, Waterford's Phase I apartment complex and a Phase II single family homes community adjacent to Hackett Hill road - will impact Millstone Brook, which flows from these areas directly into the preserve. Twenty-nine single family homes will be constructed south of Countryside Boulevard, within the small watershed of an Atlantic white cedar-giant rhododendron swamp basin. Moreover, objections/ideas presented by the public which concerned these projects were ignored, and the involvement of the public was discouraged.
The
Phase I plans received a very casual scrutiny by Manchester's
Conservation Commission and the only public hearing held by the
Planning Board took place near midnight - an unlikely time for members of the public to critique it.
Subsequently, the NH Sierra Club
furnished the Planning Board with considerable written documentation
that described the likelihood of environmental harm caused by the
project. However this information was never even mentioned in the
very short discussion which proceeded a unianimous vote for approval.
The Phase II development plans appeared to have received closer scrutiny, but in reality the approval process was badly flawed, and again, involvement by the public was discouraged or ignored. The rezoning of Lot 17, which made it legal to construct 29 homes on 18 acres within the swamps' watershed, occurred despite numerous objections made at two public hearings. These comments were ignored by the City's planning director, Bob MacKenzie and the aldermen who were members of the Bills on Second Readings Committee, since they strongly recommended the rezoning. No doubt support of the rezoning by Manchester hospitals, the owners of the property, was a major consideration.
A single public was hearing was held on the construction of the 112 single family homes. Again, objections raised here by the public and subsequently reiterated in written communications, were never mentioned at the many Planning Board meetings which concerned the project. In particular, the moratorium on the development project suggested in a letter by a NH Sierra Club member should have been considered by the Planning Board. (A one year moratorium would prevent environmentally-damaging mistakes that occur whenever a rapid review is made of a complex situation.) Furthermore, as described in the letter, studies done during a moratorium could have resulted in alternative proposals for the use of the property. Funds might have been generated for these possibilities, thus putting an end to the notion that private property should be developed at will, since the owner otherwises faces financial hardship. In fact, since the letter was written, the possibility has surfaced that Hackett Hill land may be purchased via I-93 widening mitigation funds.
Of major important is the fact that the study conducted for Waterford by a Gove Environmental Consultant (Heather S. Storlazzi Ward) was not made available to the public for scrutiny prior to the Planning Board's approval of the Phase II development. The study, sent to the Planning Department, concluded that "it does not appear that the project will negatively impact the Cedar Swamp," yet even a casual glance at the document (available only to the public at a cost of nearly $30, due to a charge of $1 a page photocopying by the Planning Department) indicates that the study was very superficial. To add insult to injury, it appears that most of the members of the Manchester Conservation Commission were not aware of the study and/or did not feel competent to pass judgement on it.
The
consultant's study has a number of very apparent inadequacies.
Potential vernal pools were noted in the project area, but no
consideration was given to the fact that substantial time is required
to obtain official certification of a vernal pool and to determine
appropriate buffer zones for animal species which rely on the pool
for their reproduction. The study noted that the NH Natural Inventory
had declared that the project zone was 500 feet from the rare swamps,
yet the consultant stated that the distance was actually 1000 feet,
and no attempt was made to investigate the discrepancy. Moreover, the
swamp species of primary concern is cited as the Atlantic white
cedars, whereas a massive giant rhododendron swamp is closest to the
project area. The vegetated buffer zones adjacent to the swamp were
praised, but there was no detailed analysis of the specific wildlife
utilizing these areas and the width of the buffer territory necessary
for their survival. The investigator did a "function and value"
analysis of the vernal pools and swamps, and amazingly concluded that
neither had any educational or scientific value, largely because of
accessibility. The possibility of invasive plant species such as
Phagmites entering and thriving in an area disturbed by development,
and ultimately causing the swamps' degradation, is not even mentioned
in the report.
Most importantly, this very preliminary study suggests that both the Project I and Project II areas should have undergone a thorough wildlife and botanical analysis prior to any consideration of development and that the study should have been done by several individuals with specialized knowledge of the area.
If a moratorium had occurred, it would have provided the necessary time for such analyses as well as suggesting alternative uses of the property and means of purchasing it. It would also have provided time for residents of Manchester, particularly its northwestern corner, to investigate more thoroughly the planned projects and their effects on traffic and educational facilities. The layout of roads and highways in the Hackett Hill area is such that, at present, traffic is at barely tolerable levels. To say that the addition of residential development projects will create a "traffic nightmare" is a definite understatement. Furthermore, the ills of traffic-caused air pollution must be considered. Curiously, the impact of the Waterford development on traffic and on Manchester's schools has been evaluated only by developer-financed studies, and the associated impact costs which should be paid are based only on these studies.
While the Waterford Development will almost certainly produce "urban sprawl" in northwestern Manchester and negatively affect the Hackett Hill natural communities, of equal or greater importance is the fact that democratic procedures were seriously violated during the City's consideration of the development plans. Whether or not these procedures will continue is a matter of great concern.