To the Editor:
Bravo!!! I can’t tell you how pleased I was as an environmentalist, to hear all the great questions and comments made at the November 21st Planning Meeting about the proposed Market Street development.
I agree totally with Councillors Stack’s and Divinski’s comments about the wishy washy wording of the draft document.
Several also commented on the preservation of trees. My daughter is an arborist and she has reminded me often that when you remove trees within a wooded area you are breaking up a family of trees. They are interconnected and co-dependent on each other for nutrients and connected via their root systems. When you remove some, the others will be impacted and many will be lost. As the Mayor said, a small stand of trees here and a small stand there, will directly impact the woods. The removal of 54% or more of the trees in this wooded area is just wrong.
There were many well thought out responses and challenges to the draft bylaw and site plan. Councillor Bud Halpin was so right, we are chipping away and chipping away at our wooded areas that are critical for producing oxygen.
Dewatering, as pointed out by Dave Myette, could directly impact the homes to the East who use sandpoint wells to water their properties, with no recourse for compensation from the Town available to them. (How can I not help but notice that not one concern re: dewatering was raised for the people and their properties surrounding the CCV development?)
With regards to housing affordability, Councillors Grace and Myatt said it well: “These will not be affordable housing units or fit the residential character of the area. Four-storey apartment buildings are just not appropriate in this location.”
Thank you also to Diane Huber for her comments on density increases and how they should be specifically tied to locations that are accessible and this location is not and will not provide affordable rental units. A family living in one of these units will most likely need two cars and won’t be close to any needed commercial amenities.
“There is no walkability,” as Mike Myatt said.
“Although the transportation study doesn’t “foresee” any issues with regards to parking and traffic, I think this is naive thinking to say the least when you are bringing in a minimum of 162 cars into this small congested building area.
