Background on Friends of Tully Lake
In October 2003, a group of residents from the North Quabbin region in Massachusetts came together to oppose plans to develop a large tract overlooking the southeast shore of Tully Lake. Concerned about the environmental and social impact of the proposed development and asserting the rights of the towns and residents affected to have a say, the Friends of Tully Lake waged a five-year campaign that ultimately succeeded in convincing the Board of Planning in the town of Athol to reject the proposal.
A 200 acre flood-control reservoir constructed in Royalston, Mass., in the 1940s, Tully Lake has become a hub for outdoor recreation in the region. Conflict over development on the lake was sparked in 2003 when a landowner in Athol, Gregg Duquette, floated preliminary plans to lay out 42 lots on 175 acres off Chestnut Hill Road, hemming the southeast edge of the lake. Local efforts to protect the land, reputedly the largest unprotected parcel in the area, came quickly. In July, Duquette rejected an offer from the Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust to purchase the property for its appraised value ($465,000), arguing that it was worth in excess of $750,000.
By the time that preliminary approval for development of "Grand View Acres" was granted by the Athol Board of Planning in 2005, Duquette and his partners at Dream Time Builders were proposing to build 55 home lots on the steep hillside overlooking the lake, along with the necessary access road and support infrastructure. With the process of approval underway, seeking input from potentially affected parties, the Friends of Tully Lake set out to raise public awareness and they worked with environmental and engineering consultants to gather information on the impact of development on the fragile wetlands, centering on the key issues of water runoff, septic systems, leach fields, and catch basins, as well as the fire, safety, and traffic considerations.
Under strong public pressure and with a sound environmental case against development, the Planning Board denied permission, citing not only the design issues but the maintenance and safety concerns expressed by the town's Department of Public Works and fire department. Although the decision was appealed, unsuccessfully, the developers ultimately concluded that the reduction in the number of lots needed to bring the plans into compliance would render the project economically unviable.
