Subdivision Plan With Bridge Over Wetlands Raises Ire on Block Island
August 16, 2024
Share
NEW SHOREHAM, R.I. — A proposal for seven suburban homes that would disturb one of Block Island’s few remaining wetlands is causing a stir in the normally quiet island community.
High View Glen Inc. has applied for a wetlands permit with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, as part of a project to build single-family homes on seven lots that are otherwise inaccessible to the road. The developer proposes building a 470-foot-long bridge that would cross the 7-acre Ambrose Swamp and accommodate vehicle traffic to connect the landlocked parcels with High View Road. A sewer pipe connecting to the town’s sewer infrastructure would run concurrently underneath the bridge.
But neighbors are speaking out against the plan, arguing the bridge would irrevocably damage one of the island’s few remaining wetland habitats for wildlife, and the additional noise and light pollution from both the construction and eventual future residents of the homes would exacerbate the destruction of the wetlands. The project as proposed is expected to impact more than 14,000 square feet of swamp.
Susan and Peter Gibbons, a married couple who live on Amy Dodge Lane abutting Ambrose Swamp, said they oppose the housing development because of the bridge’s impact on wetlands and wildlife.
“We can see northern harriers from our property, we see the muskrats that come across our lawn and go back and forth between our vernal pond and the swamp,” Susan said. “We see the deer and turtles. We have a neighbor on the other side of the swamp who has spotted turtles that come out of the swamp and into her backyard.”
The Gibbons said three of the proposed single-family homes would directly abut their property, and High View Glen’s wildlife assessment underestimated the amount of wildlife using the swamp. Regardless of their feelings about the homes, it’s the bridge and its accompanying sewer lane, said Susan, that could cause the most damage to the swamp.
“The bridge is 471 feet long,” she said. “We don’t have a bridge anywhere on Block Island right now, even on town roads or state roads, that’s anywhere near that size. The scope is much, much larger than anything out here, never mind something that goes across a wetland.”
“Whenever I think of a bridge, I see people throwing trash off of the bridge on both sides,” Peter said. “There’s always plastic bottles, nips, and cigarette butts and all of that’s going to the edge of the bridge, not to mention the boom of cars and traffic and noise and light pollution for all the animals using the swamp.”
Efforts to develop the parcels go back decades. The family of the current owner, Jill Stern, has owned dozens of parcels in the area around Ambrose Swamp since 1965, with a number of individual parcels sold off over the years to private individuals and, in one case, The Nature Conservancy. Stern has been trying to do something with the lots since at least 1999. She first proposed building a road over the wetlands in 2007, but DEM officials at the time asked her to consider alternative access options to minimize impacts to the wetlands.
Over the next 15 years, Stern contacted several different neighbors of the landlocked parcels, but each owner rebuffed her offer regarding access, including the town in 2021, when the Town Council put the kibosh on her request for access across land owned by the municipality.
In their application materials, Stern and her project engineers made the argument they had exhausted all other access options to the landlocked parcels, and building a bridge across the swamp was the only way to retain the property rights associated with the parcels. They also argue the rights to the parcels predate federal and state regulations regarding wetlands, which they argued did not come into existence until the Clean Water Act of 1972, seven years after the family bought the original lots.
“Therefore, the design and recording of the High View Glen subdivision was done absent of any state or federal regulatory requirements limiting impacts to freshwater wetlands,” Scott Rabideau, the wildlife biologist hired for the housing proposal, wrote in his environmental impact report.
Stern told ecoRI News in a statement that “All efforts have been made to mitigate wetland impact and to avoid a wetland crossing as documented in the application. This is not a new development plan, since the property was subdivided on record in the 1960s.”
The Gibbons aren’t the only local residents opposing the housing development and bridge. The project to date has received at least a dozen letters from neighbors and other island residents opposing the project. John and Wendy Formica, who live on Pilot Hill Road, submitted a letter opposing the approval of the project’s wetlands permit, expressing concerns over the ecological changes it could bring in the swamp.
“This development project seems to be the antithesis of the conservation and culture of Block Island,” the Formicas wrote. “For over 50 years the ethos of Block Island has been the protection of its limited land and related resources to ensure the character of the island is preserved. This project is essentially an attempt to circumvent the measured and deliberate process the town has gone through over several decades to preserve its natural and unique beauty.”
The Nature Conservancy, itself a direct abutter to the properties, urged DEM to reject the wetlands permit. In a letter written by Scott Comings, TNC’s associate state director, he wrote the application contained insufficient detail on invasive plants, endangered or threatened species found within the swamp, or on the long-term impact from traffic, noise, and chemical vehicle runoff from the road bridge.
“We believe this proposed alteration is unacceptable,” Comings wrote, “and negatively impacts the wetlands complex while also causing irreparable harm to our abutting lands and the sole reason they were purchased.”
DEM is accepting comments on the project until Monday, Aug. 19, at 4 p.m.
I believe they should be allowed to build the bridge to access their land and house lots. I also believe if the abutting land owners don’t want the bridge they should come upon an agreement to allow passage to the lots.
Someone owns the land. They have a right to access that land and do what they choose with it as long as they meet the state and town limitations.
The neighbors can’t have their cake and eat it too. They have to give a little to preserve the wetlands or the bridge should be built which I believe will be minimal impact on the wetlands.
I lived on Block Island for over twenty years and I treasure this truly unique treasure. Through all those years there have been proposals to change the nature of the Island usually to enrich the applicants. Thankfully the residents of the Island have worked very hard to preserve the beauty and nature that is so rare. Listen to the residents, they know the land, the sea and the resources. It is clear on any summer day that the Island is at capacity.
my only comment is it’s not one of the last remaining wetlands. it is however a significant wetland.
I am against the proposed project
As someone who has been enjoying the beauty of Block Island since the early 1970s, my opinion is that enough is enough. There’s been enough development on the island and I think we need to protect every piece of delicate wetland that we can. Every time we make an exception we encroach more and more on land & wildlife until we’re not gonna have any island left. Once done, it’s very difficult to undo. All of these decisions are made based on profits. So my answer is no, no, NO!!!
This project is truly the antithesis of what Block Island works so hard to preserve and makes it such a paradise. My jaw literally dropped when I saw this headline I was so shocked and I’m quite disappointed to be seeing this after the comments to the DEM already closed yesterday. As a born and raised Rhode Islander, who knows how special Block Island is, I do not support this. The owner must of known about the access issues when they bought the property. It also speaks volumes that they want to put the pristine swamp in peril if they have such history on the island. Because it will certainly have a negative impact by having an impact at all with the construction, runoff, littering etc. To claim otherwise is a flat out lie ignoring facts. Places like this are ever more rare and irreplaceable. Please protect the swamp. More time at the very least is needed to gather the current information needed to make such an irreversible decision.
Another for-profit development that will ultimately only benefit the developer. Who will maintain this bridge and the sewer line running with it? This is a pretty long bridge. If an HOA is tasked with its maintenance and repair there is likely to be an issue when it comes time to actually make repairs. If the town accepts the road and bridge this will become an unreasonable burden on taxpayers for the benefit of 7 houses. By the time repairs become necessary the developer will either be long gone or no longer in business.
This bridge is a horrible idea.. I wholeheartedly agree with Peter, Sue Gibbons, and Wendy Formica.
The destruction of a beautiful natural wetland, destroying a safe haven for the poor wildlife that make this swamp their home and refuge while building a bridge and sewer, for personal gain?
Will this set a precedent for more copycat situations like this?
Block Island is a magical place to preserve and protect if we are beyond fortunate to live and visit here. I am against going forward with this plan. I love this island and that swamp.
As a former Professional Wetlands Scientist, both for the State of RI and as a private consultant, I had the opportunity to work on many applications and projects involving proposed alterations to wetlands. Interestingly, it was not uncommon to be involved in similar instances where property rights collided with the desire to protect invaluable habitats; wetlands being one of the most critical given the long history of disregard for this type of landscape.
I have direct experience with some of Block Island’s wetlands. Back in the 90’s my consulting firm (Travassos-Geremia & Assoc.) was hired by the town to evaluate a proposed use of Fresh Pond as a drinking water supply. My recommendations to the town called for not proceeding with the project due to impacts on fisheries and adjoining wetlands.
In this case we are faced with a battle between those who have pre-existing property rights and the legal protection against unnecessary alterations of wetlands.
In my experience most neighbors are against projects because they have a vested selfish interest (NIMBY) while others protest because they have a genuine interest in protecting the intrinsic value of the wetlands. And some are offended that the “ethos” of Block Island will be damaged, despite already having developed their own properties on the island, but are not willing to ante up to do much to save the wetlands.
It seems that if the town and its citizens (and TNC) are so concerned about the wetlands that they should be willing to cooperate with granting the property owners alternative access, or the cadre of opponents might want to collectively buy out the development rights of the property. In either case the wetland areas would win, which should be the primary goal for all involved.
The bridge is a bad idea. But hiding behind the veil of environmental protection as a means of stopping development on the island, without a willingness to sacrifice for the environment, is just plain disingenuous.
As an environmental advocate who has never been on the island, I was thunderstruck to read that such a lengthy bridge could be built on such an island. Having said this makes me think of a possible argument to oppose the bridge: Protected view. Meanwhile, it would be best to do one’s own Bio Blitz/ Biological study. Utilize RIDEM’s 2015 WAP list of Species in Greatest Need of Conservation https://dem.ri.gov/natural-resources-bureau/fish-wildlife/conservation-research/ri-state-wildlife-action-plan
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/swamps-can-protect-against-climate-change-if-we-only-let-them
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/view-lawyers.html
https://www.jrobertilaw.com/blog/2022/08/can-my-neighbor-legally-block-my-view-from-my-home/
https://pacificviewcenter.com/2011/05/17/view-rights-ocean-views-trees-spite-fences-and-jury-instructions/
https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/how-do-wetlands-function-and-why-are-they-valuable notes, “Wetlands store carbon within their plant communities and soil instead of releasing it to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Thus, wetlands help to moderate global climate conditions.”
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/22/3301notes, “Urban wetlands are more vulnerable to human intervention and destruction than any other ecosystem. The main drivers of the destruction and extinction of urban wetlands include population growth, uncontrolled urban construction, eutrophication, contamination, land conversion, drainage, changed water regime, over-exploitation, and biodiversity loss due to invasive alien species.”