*t*
Joined: 12:04 AM - Aug 11, 2007

8:26 AM - Sep 10, 2018 #241

It is not that traffic is insignificant. I watched traffic on a similar West Gloucester thru street increase noticeably in the 12 year I lived there. It is just that in order to preserve property rights for everyone, you need to allow development. If you disallow it you need a really good reason.  A car or two an hour does not, in my mind, meet that standard. If you are changing use, from residential to commercial, for instance, as a developer you need to meet a higher standard. Opponents of the hotel cited traffic, completely ignoring that the existing building could be developed to just as high a traffic level. This makes it a losing argument.

Were the developers not taking advantage of existing zoning, then they would have had to meet a higher standard to get approved
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 5:45 PM - Feb 28, 2008

10:40 AM - Sep 10, 2018 #242

Traffic concerns are nothing more than a red herring with these obstructionists.  They simply don't want anything built and will use any excuse to try and stall, delay add more cost to the project.  Some have said they could accept 12 separate lots as a better fit, and I call that bullshit too. They want nothing there and are unwilling to purchase the land.  This entire argument is based on opinions of a few Nimby's with no validity to their argument to any traffic concerns or runoff.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:12 PM - Feb 19, 2010

7:07 PM - Sep 18, 2018 #243

At the Planning Board on Thursday, Sept 20,  6PM, City Hall, Kyrouz

Reviewing Cluster Development Special Permit for Carrigan.

http://www.gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCen ... /Item/9436
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:12 PM - Feb 19, 2010

1:31 PM - Sep 20, 2018 #244

I checked to see what is happening tonight since this already cleared Planning Board.  It is an official vote to adopt the Special Permit.  I'm not sure why they do this but City Council did the same on Fuller Development...passed it in one meeting then officially adopted it in a later one. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 3:56 PM - Jul 02, 2014

1:04 PM - Sep 21, 2018 #245

WTF !

Can't believe that this Carrigan thing is going through
leaving Bosco and other wildlife that have lived on those
acres for centuries without even a f***ing home!



Please check out Bosco's Go Fund Me Page:

gofundme.com/boscodontevenhaveaf***ingplacetolivenottoevenmentionseveralvarietiesofspecialbees
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:12 PM - Feb 19, 2010

1:38 PM - Sep 21, 2018 #246

😂😜😂

You know the situation is dire when moro posts a link !!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 6:00 PM - Jun 25, 2007

9:49 AM - Sep 24, 2018 #247

Seems it is over, perhaps.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:12 PM - Feb 19, 2010

10:15 AM - Sep 24, 2018 #248

With Planning Board and Conservation Commission approval and no expected problems it does sound like it is getting close to a go for the developer.  Bosco better look into buying one of the units...two of them will be affordable housing units.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... ac6d0.html
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 5:45 PM - Feb 28, 2008

12:24 PM - Oct 01, 2018 #249

Just when you think Dennis McGurk couldn't sink any lower, he writes another letter to the editor in the fashion of a true 12 year old that didn't get his own way. In this latest chapter he slanders, insults and berates the entire planning board and specifically calls out Rick Noonan. The planning board is comprised of an excellent crosssection of Gloucester's population and are intelligent and make well thought out decisions and have done so for years. Here comes McGurk suddenly an expert in development and only he knows what is good developmentand is certain that Carrigan is paying them off or their just to stupid to catch Carrigan. Hopefully anyone reading this can see that McGurk is only a self serving obstructionist twat.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 6:00 PM - Jun 25, 2007

12:39 PM - Oct 01, 2018 #250

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.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 5:45 PM - Feb 28, 2008

3:10 PM - Oct 01, 2018 #251

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.
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. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 2:17 PM - Nov 19, 2014

9:29 AM - Oct 02, 2018 #252

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 6:00 PM - Jun 25, 2007

11:48 AM - Oct 02, 2018 #253

Thank you First Timer. That is what I was trying to say, but you said it much more clearly.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 5:45 PM - Feb 28, 2008

2:05 PM - Oct 02, 2018 #254

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.
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. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 12:27 AM - Mar 30, 2007

4:48 PM - Oct 02, 2018 #255

When traffic becomes unbearable and you can't get from here to there without being stuck or delayed then city planners will realize that they are killing the goose to get a few more eggs in their financial tax basket.
One day the "livability" of Gloucester will be tougher and the quality of life
compromised.
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:12 PM - Feb 19, 2010

5:17 PM - Oct 02, 2018 #256

WT...I will refer you to the Housing Production Plan.  Gloucester needs over 600 additional units of housing to accommodate our own demographics.  The Planning Board, being bright and knowledgeable people, understand the Housing Production Plan and that is one of the driving factors in bringing new housing to our city.

 Don't be selfish.  Other people need a place to live too.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:12 PM - Feb 19, 2010

6:09 PM - Oct 02, 2018 #257

In good news, Gloucester is taking a good look at  zoning that has intersectional considerations right now...with an eye to housing that considers transportation, businesses and other factors.  I am very encouraged. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 5:54 PM - Feb 07, 2008

6:16 PM - Oct 02, 2018 #258

William.... you always make Kitty feel bad with your dark visions!



sad haiku

when traffic becomes
unbearable and you can't
get from here to there
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:12 PM - Feb 19, 2010

6:22 PM - Oct 02, 2018 #259

Ok...your kitty is more charitable than mine is feeling tonight.

sad haiku

when other people
get in the way of my peace
they must go away
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 6:00 PM - Jun 25, 2007

6:23 PM - Oct 02, 2018 #260

Karly, I agree with your point but am not sure how much it has to do with this particular proposal. Any housing built in this location is likely to be very expensive and it is not on bus or train routes. Of course complaining about potential traffic there is indeed a bit bizarre.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share