The conservation and preservation easements on Greylock, which both the developer and the Conservancy have an absolute legal obligation to uphold, simply do not permit the construction of new residential buildings as proposed by the developer. Any suggestion to the contrary, by the developer, the architect, the developer's legal team, CHCA members, or the Conservancy is completely without any basis in law or fact. In the front yard, no pool, no pool building and no septic field is permitted. In the rear, within the building envelope, what is allowed is very clear: a pool, pool house, gazebo, tennis court, garden shed, terraces, walkways and wall, but only as long as these or any other modifications do not interrupt park views, street views, open space, from any angle or perspective. But no new residential buildings are permitted.

The Conservancy had, from the start, a significant conflict of interest in the form of a board member who was the developer's architect and advocate. Worse yet, the Conservancy continued to say to the public that no decision had been made about the project only to much later admit that it had given this developer's plans "conceptual approval," the clear violations of the easements notwithstanding.

The idea, as claimed by some, that Greylock is an eyesore and therefore can only be cleaned up by letting the developer have his way, the easements be damned, is utter nonsense. Both the owner and the Conservancy undertook clear, and specific and binding legal obligations to maintain the Greylock property. The Conservancy should be taking the developer to court to enforce his obligations – not rolling over so he can make millions on a development project that so clearly violates the easements the Conservancy is sworn to uphold. One need see only the trees, the fences, the broken sidewalks which were never shoveled this past winter, the interior and exterior of the building, wood, plaster, trees growing in gutters. It's time for the Conservancy to step up.

The Conservancy actively solicits public funds in part by bragging about an easement program that preserves open space. Yet, on this most important property, the Conservancy is apparently willing to ignore the plain language of the easements to allow a developer to build million-dollar-plus properties at odds with the easements. Why? And what will next happen to the very next easement owned by the Conservancy that gets in some developer's way?

Save Greylock, save the use of conservation and preservation easements as a means to restrict private property development and protect open space.

Brad Bank

Chestnut Hill