Rocky outcrop spotlights need for CR defense

Rocky outcrop threatened by Haddad expansion project at the intersection of Route 7 and Dan Fox Drive

This spring, the Resources Council and its friends fought a battle over a rocky outcrop at the intersection of Route 7 and Dan Fox Drive in Pittsfield. The ledgy parcel at the heart of the fight is subject to a conservation restriction held by the City of Pittsfield. The CR made all the difference when a local automobile dealer announced his intention to seek $1 million in public funding to blast a road through the rock and build two new dealerships.

Local conservationists objected to the plan on any number of grounds. But a larger context loomed over the fight: The fate of conservation restrictions as a land preservation tool.
With the mayor's support, car dealer George Haddad asked the Pittsfield Conservation Commission to release the conservation restriction. The gambit outraged conservationists and parks advocates in the city, who argued that surrendering on the rocky outcrop would jeopardize future gifts of open space to the city, and set terrible precedent for the stewardship of other city-owned conservation interests.
On June 24, by the narrowest of margins - a 3-3 tie vote - the Commission denied Haddad's request to undo the restriction.

That the fight erupted in the first place can be traced to the nature of a conservation restriction, or CR. Unlike, say, Canoe Meadows Sanctuary in Pittsfield, which is owned outright by the Massachusetts Audubon Society, land subject to a CR remains in private ownership. The landowner enters a binding legal agreement with the CR holder - in this case, the city's Conservation Commission - that development will be prohibited or severely limited.

This approach works well with landowners who share the original conservation ethic. They keep ownership, control and privacy, and remain secure in the knowledge that the land will remain undeveloped even after they're gone.
The potential for trouble arises if future landowners chafe under the CR's limitations and look for ways to evade its terms. Restriction holders, along with their supporters, must remain steadfast in resisting initiatives such as Haddad's if they do not want to see their preservation achievements erode.

In Pittsfield's case, the Haddad plan threatened not only the rocky outcrop, but by extension, the forested hill that makes up the city's southern gateway. There are gaps in this greenbelt, but it is no accident that the hill is largely undeveloped: The City and the Resources Council have worked together for some 30 years to conserve most of this road frontage, limiting sprawl and preserving a green entry to the city.
More broadly, the Commonwealth has much to lose if CR holders grow cavalier about their responsibilities. According to data compiled by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, as of December 2003, a total of 77,252 acres had been protected by 2,934 conservation restrictions.

Most of these acres are protected by land trusts, but state agencies and conservation commissions also hold CRs, and the threats and obligations are identical no matter who the holder. Indirectly, but significantly, a bad result at one property has implications for all. Vigilance and mutual support will be necessary to uphold the integrity of the CR as a land protection tool.

This is why 51 land trusts from across the state, including the Council, have donated a total of nearly $14,000 to help the Weston Forest & Trail Association litigate a gross CR violation that may become an important test case.

This is why Berkshire Natural Resources Council, itself the holder of 82 restrictions covering 7,337 acres, fought so loudly and publicly with a mayor and a car dealer for much of the spring and early summer.
And this is why we, and our colleagues across Massachusetts, need the continuing support of all who cherish our protected landscape.