At
their July 25 meeting, a business meeting, the Manchester Planning
Board again voted unanimously to table the Waterford Corporation's
Hackett Hill Single Family Homes project. Members of the board who
were present and voted for the tabling were: Planning Board Chair
Joan Bennett, Raymond Clement, Robert Stephen, Christopher Dodd,
Alderman Mary Sysyn and Alternates Alderman Betsi DeVries and Todd
Connors.
The vote took place during a business meeting. No issues that required a public hearing were considered at the meeting.
Previous to the meeting, members of the Board had received a petition signed by the "Hackett Hill Neighbors." The petition read as follows:
"We, the undersigned, request that you declare a one year moratorium on the Waterford Development Corporation's Hackett Hill single-family homes project. The purpose of the moratorium should be to determine and fully evaluate all of the environmental impacts which this project could cause."
The
petition was prepared by the Merrimack Valley Sierra Club. The
signees were limited to people living in the immediate vicinity of
Hackett Hill who are familiar with the property and its natural
resources, and/or would be affected by increased traffic from the
development. It was accompanied by a cover letter which suggested
that the moratorium period be used by the Board for several purposes:
(1) to attend work shops and site visits which would concern the
Atlantic white cedar/giant rhododendron swamps and the likely effects
of nearby development on the swamps; (2) to arrange for a thorough
wildlife study of the properties slated for development; and (3) to
extend the traffic study prepared and submitted by the
developer.
The Planning Board members also received a letter from the Manchester Conservation Commission. The letter was read by Todd Connors, who also elaborated on its contents. The letter suggested that the Conservation Commission is very reluctant to support an immediate decision on the Waterford Application.
After a brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously to table the application for the second time. This decision means that "the ball was now in the developer's court." Legally, a vote must be taken at the next meeting of the Planning Board on August 8. The developer could risk a vote at that time, or request an extension.