Link: Copy link
So you believe him over the entire planning board and don't believe that after multiple trips to the site that the planning board never took this into consideration? I say Bullshit, the planning board is better than you and McGurk are giving them credit for. You've been an obstructionist too and mostly wrong, Gloucester crossing and the Hotel are two recent examples of you crying wolf.Damon wrote: Although I have mixed feelings about this project (for example I think it is the type of thing the cluster rule was intended to address), I think Mr. McGurk made good points, particularly about the misleading testimony about all the houses that could be built under water if the cluster were not approved.
I am not a simpleton. I know exactly what he is pointing out. The fact is he wants nothing there no matter what type of building. He also slandered, insulted and berated the entire planning board who also know perfectly well the intent of clusters and the topography of the land in question. McGurk is just being a crybaby for not getting his own way. Do you think the entire planning board is stupid, corrupt or misunderstand the outcome? Because that's what McGurk is trying to tell everyone.First Timer wrote: I think you're missing the basic point that McGurk is making here Thong. Let's move away from Carrigan for a second with an example:
Developer Bill has a 10 acre wooded buildable lot zoned R40. He knows he could build 10 houses on 1 acre lots each. Instead he proposes a cluster where 7 buildable acres are preserved as open space, and 10 houses are built on remaining 3 acres in a cluster arrangement. Good outcome, what the cluster zoning was meant to achieve.
Developer Ted also has a 10 acre lot zoned R40, but 7 acres are unbuildable (e.g. wetlands, marsh, etc). He proposes building 10 houses on the 3 buildable acres of his lot in a cluster arrangement. Still a good outcome? Or is it using the cluster zoning in an unintended manner since Ted could only build 3 homes under a conventional plan? You can't conserve what isn't buildable in the first place.
My understanding is that cluster zoning is meant to preserve buildable open space as in the Bill example above. So far as I know, the Planning Board never determined exactly what % of Carrigan's lot (zoned unbuildable by the City tax assessor) was buildable. That's a pretty important part of the cluster zoning equation here I think. Rather, it appears they adopted the new Ted approach where they view "70% conserved" whether it is buildable or not. That would set a new precedent for future development in Gloucester.
You may think the Ted example above is fine. That's ok, but it is in conflict with Statute 5.9.5 of our zoning ordinance. I believe that's what McGurk was pointing out.