The LUPZ and DRC committees of the CHCA and the Conservancy have proven again to be feckless in the face of developers who disregard binding easements put in place nearly two decades ago that were designed for the purpose of protecting and preserving the milieu of Chestnut Hill, in this case, the Greylock property.
One has to wonder with whom their loyalty resides if 80% of the near neighbors oppose the variances – and the tie-breaking vote from the Committee was cast in support of the developer. Additionally, this is not the only developer with interest in Greylock; this …
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 LUPZ and DRC committees of the CHCA and the Conservancy have proven again to be feckless in the face of developers who disregard binding easements put in place nearly two decades ago that were designed for the purpose of protecting and preserving the milieu of Chestnut Hill, in this case, the Greylock property.
One has to wonder with whom their loyalty resides if 80% of the near neighbors oppose the variances – and the tie-breaking vote from the Committee was cast in support of the developer. Additionally, this is not the only developer with interest in Greylock; this developer was in partnership with the previous developers who allowed the property's decline; so, as Dr. McLeod wrote last month, "it is fatuous" to think that Chestnut Hill needs this developer.
Adriana della Porta
Chestnut Hill
