The discussions over the Greylock development have left out one very important voice: that of the former owners who placed the easements on the property. Their intentions were clear to anyone who reads them – to preserve the property in perpetuity while maintaining the grounds and viewsheds into it from the park and adjacent properties.
As a result, the former owners not only received less money for the property, but they also paid the Chestnut Hill Conservancy to follow through on their wishes by enforcing the easements on the property.
Subsequent buyers, including the …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
You can also purchase this individual item for $1.50
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active subscription, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
The discussions over the Greylock development have left out one very important voice: that of the former owners who placed the easements on the property. Their intentions were clear to anyone who reads them – to preserve the property in perpetuity while maintaining the grounds and viewsheds into it from the park and adjacent properties.
As a result, the former owners not only received less money for the property, but they also paid the Chestnut Hill Conservancy to follow through on their wishes by enforcing the easements on the property.
Subsequent buyers, including the current owner, knew of these easements. As we have seen, this most current owner has ignored the maintenance easements on the land, and the Conservancy has ignored their enforcement responsibility. Now they are ignoring them again. This development scheme ignores the intentions of the former owners.
Shame on the developer and Conservancy. They both know their responsibilities, and they are not only wrong from a legal standpoint but disrespectful of the family who sought to preserve the character of our community in perpetuity.
I guess it’s up to the community to be the voice to defeat this proposal to make way for a developer waiting in the wings to responsibly develop Greylock to the satisfaction of the community and the former owners.
Walt Crimm
Mt. Airy
