Home » News » Politics
August 22. 2012 1:09AM
Open space map in Londonderry draws criticism
LONDONDERRY — When it comes to Londonderry’s recently released Open Space Task Force report, not everyone is pleased to see their names in print.
During Monday night’s Town Council meeting, property owners Giovanni and Margherita Verani expressed concerns over the long-term implications of having their properties designated on the new Open Space map.
Earlier this summer, Conservation Commission member and task force chairman Mike Speltz publicly discussed highlights of the completed report, based on a town-wide open space inventory and the results of a recent task force survey on citizens’ open space preferences.
It’s been just over a year since the task force was charged with determining resources needed to maintain a livable Londonderry. Speltz said the timing is ideal right now, since Londonderry is heading into a new master planning cycle.
Based on this year’s inventory, the task force has determined that 15 percent of the town is permanently protected while another 15.6 percent is temporarily protected, for a total of more than 8,000 acres.
Of the approximately 10,000 land parcels in Londonderry, 2,543 fall into the green infrastructure. Eighty acres have been identified as land containing the highest level of “green” services, while another 6,556 acres were prioritized due to threat, cost and resource value. Fifty-five parcels are high-cost land parcels that are also the ones most threatened by pending development.
Margherita Verani said this week that she objected to having her property listed in the identified “green infrastructure.”
“I’ve never once had an experiences where my property is put on something where it didn’t have consequences down the road,” the longtime town resident said.
Giovanni Verani said he particularly takes issue with the fact that the town “wants to promote economic development, but didn’t include any of the parcels of land that’s zoned commercial or industrial — only residential.”
“The Conservation Commission we may have 20 years from now is going to look at this and ask why this map was created,” he added. “So I guess my concern is why they created this infrastructure mapping in the first place?”
Council Chairman John Farrell noted that the plan is nonbinding, though he said he understood the property owners’ concerns.
Following a brief discussion, the council agreed that the Veranis’ request to be taken off the map seemed reasonable, though in all fairness that option should be made available to all applicable property owners as well, which complicates matters.
“I’m not sure I can give you any different argument. We have to distinguish the green infrastructure based on natural resources,” Speltz said. “A good example is Woodmont Orchard, which has been in the green infrastructure for years. Needless to say, nothing has stopped that from going to through the development process. And if you know what price that land went for, there’s obviously no adverse affect to being on that list.”
“If it’s my land and I plan to maximize its potential, I don’t want anything inhibiting its use,” Margherita Verani argued.
“It’s too much of a risk,” added Giovanni Verani. “I truly believe that’s not the intention of our current Conservation Commission, but another group might have different priorities down the road.”
The council unanimously agreed that the best option at this point would be to discuss the matter further with the town’s legal counsel, with plans to further address the issue during a September meeting.
April Guilmet may be reached at AGuilmet@newstote.com.
During Monday night’s Town Council meeting, property owners Giovanni and Margherita Verani expressed concerns over the long-term implications of having their properties designated on the new Open Space map.
Earlier this summer, Conservation Commission member and task force chairman Mike Speltz publicly discussed highlights of the completed report, based on a town-wide open space inventory and the results of a recent task force survey on citizens’ open space preferences.
It’s been just over a year since the task force was charged with determining resources needed to maintain a livable Londonderry. Speltz said the timing is ideal right now, since Londonderry is heading into a new master planning cycle.
Based on this year’s inventory, the task force has determined that 15 percent of the town is permanently protected while another 15.6 percent is temporarily protected, for a total of more than 8,000 acres.
Of the approximately 10,000 land parcels in Londonderry, 2,543 fall into the green infrastructure. Eighty acres have been identified as land containing the highest level of “green” services, while another 6,556 acres were prioritized due to threat, cost and resource value. Fifty-five parcels are high-cost land parcels that are also the ones most threatened by pending development.
Margherita Verani said this week that she objected to having her property listed in the identified “green infrastructure.”
“I’ve never once had an experiences where my property is put on something where it didn’t have consequences down the road,” the longtime town resident said.
Giovanni Verani said he particularly takes issue with the fact that the town “wants to promote economic development, but didn’t include any of the parcels of land that’s zoned commercial or industrial — only residential.”
“The Conservation Commission we may have 20 years from now is going to look at this and ask why this map was created,” he added. “So I guess my concern is why they created this infrastructure mapping in the first place?”
Council Chairman John Farrell noted that the plan is nonbinding, though he said he understood the property owners’ concerns.
Following a brief discussion, the council agreed that the Veranis’ request to be taken off the map seemed reasonable, though in all fairness that option should be made available to all applicable property owners as well, which complicates matters.
“I’m not sure I can give you any different argument. We have to distinguish the green infrastructure based on natural resources,” Speltz said. “A good example is Woodmont Orchard, which has been in the green infrastructure for years. Needless to say, nothing has stopped that from going to through the development process. And if you know what price that land went for, there’s obviously no adverse affect to being on that list.”
“If it’s my land and I plan to maximize its potential, I don’t want anything inhibiting its use,” Margherita Verani argued.
“It’s too much of a risk,” added Giovanni Verani. “I truly believe that’s not the intention of our current Conservation Commission, but another group might have different priorities down the road.”
The council unanimously agreed that the best option at this point would be to discuss the matter further with the town’s legal counsel, with plans to further address the issue during a September meeting.
- - - - - - - -
April Guilmet may be reached at AGuilmet@newstote.com.
» SHARE EVENTS FOR PUBLICATION, IT'S FREE!
Upcoming Events
- Should Manchester's mayor receive a 59% pay raise?
- Yes
- 23%
- No
- 77%
- Total Votes: 292