Article 35 (Forest Ridge)

admin

ARTICLE 35. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate, transfer or borrow a sum of money to pay the costs to acquire by purchase, donation, or otherwise, the approximately 13.41-acre property located at Forest Circle identified as Parcel 1-202 and 1-273 on the Assessor’s Map, to be used for municipal purposes, and to take any other action incidental and related thereto.

Rich_Rohan-2

I think that the actual language of the motion is important. "Moved and seconded that the Town is authorized to acquire by purchase, donation, or otherwise, the approximately 13.41-acre property located at Forest Circle identified as Parcel ID Lot 202 and 273 on the Assessor's Map, to be used for municipal purposes. (my emphasis). Everyone of the neighbors who attended last night's Select Board meeting on this article spoke in favor of conservation of the entire 13.41-acres. If the intent is to place the parcel in a conservation conservancy the motion language should, in my opinion, clearly state that intent.

I also have some reservations about the funding for this purchase.

Maura_Sullivan-1

Thanks for starting the conversation, Rich. For those who didn't watch the Select Board meeting last night, they voted unfavorable action on Article 35.

As a P1 Town Meeting member, a frequent Fells walker, and an avid open space advocate, I agree with all of the residents who have been writing that this land should never be developed. While I don’t really see it as a place for hiking because of where the access points are and because the Fells is available for free already, it does look like the Fells and should be protected. Therefore, I would ultimately support a conservation restriction on both parcels (whether privately owned or Town-owned), just as I support a conservation restriction on certain other land that is currently owned by the Town that does not yet bear this designation.

But that's not what the motion is asking us to do and even if could be amended to swap out "municipal purposes" for conservation, I don’t feel we have been given what we need to make an informed decision. We are talking about a lot of money and land and we need to be thoughtful, deliberate, and transparent as we consider our use of public funds.

Lauren_Herrmann-3

Maura_Sullivan-1 I agree. There is not nearly enough detail to make an informed decision at this point.

Terence_Tirella-2

I have a hard time envisioning how the land could be made to be publicly accessible. Accessing it from forest circle presents the same problems the residential development projects have had (poor egress, no where to park, steep incline, etc.) and the back parcel is only accessible off of North Border Rd and is almost entirely wetlands. There is some parking at the end of North Border but getting from the Fells into this land would probably require building boardwalks through wetlands which seems a bit counter-productive if the aim is to preserve the land. I'm told that some of the neighbors have done some exploration.

I think the key point from the discussion at the select board is that it's not clear if the land is truly developable. The historical record indicates that it isn't (otherwise there would already be homes on the lot). If it isn't possible to build on the lot what is the market value of 13 acres of forest? I suspect the answer is that it's under $3M - but at the moment the town would only be bidding against itself to acquire the land.

Maura_Sullivan-1

Terence_Tirella-2 Agree re access. It's really tucked away and Forest Circle cannot support parking. As for whether it's developable, many of the emails we received this weekend point to it not being developable.

Lauren_Herrmann-3

Terence_Tirella-2 I agree with your point that if it was developable, it would have been already. This feels like a bail out for the owner.

Brian_Vernaglia-4

Some questions: What's the price? It looks like this allocates $1.5M through a borrowing authorization but is contingent on an additional $1.5M borrowing authorization at Spring Town Meeting. So does that mean our offer would be $3M? Would our negotiating power be diminished when the owner knows what Town Meeting authorized, effectively creating a price floor? How would we fund if it turned out to cost more than $3M?

Terence_Tirella-2

Brian_Vernaglia-4 All good questions. I think we have the cart in front of the horse right now. It's hard to see all the key questions being answered in the next week or two.

Rich_Rohan-2

Brian_Vernaglia-4 This is the type of purchase that the Community Preservation Act was designed for. IMO, the entire purchase should be funded through the newly created Winchester Committee for Community Preservation.

Rich_Rohan-2

@Terence_Tirella-2 I was part of a small group of Town Meeting members who walked the length of the parcel along with the chair of the Conservation Commission and a field botanist who was conducting an informal survey of the wetlands. Like you, I was initially worried about the access from the parking area but we found that the property line runs very close to 80 North Border Road so I could envision a boardwalk hugging the edge of the marshy land.

Terence_Tirella-2

Rich_Rohan-2 Can WCCP make debt financed purchases? My impression was that CPA provides a cash flow for projects and that WCCP projects therefore are funded from available cash - but I don't know the details of what's possible via WCCP. If it's cash only $3M would be a very large allocation for CPA funding on one project.

Brian_Vernaglia-4

Terence_Tirella-2 They can but unlike traditional CPA expenditures, it would be a 2/3 majority at TM, not just a simple majority.

Rich_Rohan-2

Terence_Tirella-2 Yes, project costs can be bonded with the debt service paid for by CPA funds. If my math is correct, the debt service on a 25-year bond for $3million would be approximately $200,000 per year. Winchester's local surcharge should collect approximately $1.6million this fiscal year. Even more when the State match is distributed in Fall of 2026.

Maura_Sullivan-1

https://www.communitypreservation.org/bonding

Terence_Tirella-2

Brian_Vernaglia-4 Got it, thanks Brian and Maura. The article as I understand it doesn't include any CPA debt so if that route were taken in the future we'd end up having to vote on this again (assuming this article passes, then the WCCP votes for purchase, etc.). Definitely would be cleaner to have one single up/down vote on purchasing the property at a pre-agreed upon price.

Maura_Sullivan-1

Terence_Tirella-2 Yes, a new application would be filed, voted on by the WCCP, and then if recommended, brought to Town Meeting for an up/down vote.

Lauren_Herrmann-3

It seems that if this land was developable, it would have happened already. Further, the owner could sell it on the market for a premium. When we have so many other Town properties that are under-maintained or not maintained at all, why should taxpayers bear another expenditure, which potentially adds annual expenses to the budget. Until the Town is fiscally able to properly maintain all Town properties, including open spaces, acquisitions must be carefully considered.

If we choose to do nothing, it seems unlikely that the current state of either parcel would change. Conversely, acquiring the land presents a whole set of potential downside risks, including environmental remediation. Hypothetically, even if the owner was to donate the property to the Town with some type of conservation restriction in perpetuity, any environmental remediation would need to be stipulated.

Maura_Sullivan-1

Lauren_Herrmann-3 I am interested in learning more about the environmental remediation piece. If land is conservation land, what are the obligations of the owner as far as remediation? I'm going to look but if you have any good links, I'd love to see them.

Terence_Tirella-2

This document from the 2016 proposal does a nice job of summarize clearly the many issues that would prevent development of the property. It's really hard to see this property ever being developed regardless of a conservation restriction. The property owner has no leverage relative to the town's ability to restrict undesirable development without the town needing to purchase the property.