[Town Meeting] proposedsubstitute motion Article 20

[pbworden at comcast.net]

Proposed Substitute Motion:
Article 20
Easement/55 Venner Road
                        
            I, Patricia B. Worden, do hereby submit the following SUBSTITUTE Motion
 
VOTED:   That the Town hereby votes to abandon the easement for side lines at 55 Venner Road, Arlington, MA.  (as taken and established on April 6, 1942 and recorded at Middlesex Registry of Deeds, Book 6591, Page 1) if and only if the following condition is applied:  Prior to the recording of said abandonment, the Owner shall grant to the Town, or to a charitable corporation empowered to hold such restrictions, a conservation easement in perpetuity, or for the maximum allowable period, for the area defined by the side lines but excluding therefrom sufficient area to enable changes necessary for universal accessibility for the existing house; said area to be so excluded to be determined by the Arlington Redevelopment Board.
 
 
 
                                                                        __________________________
                                                                        Town Meeting Member, Precinct 8
May ___, 2006


Article 20 concerning release of any Town easement at 55 Venner Road raises the specter of a development of two or three McMansions at that address as was the case at the corner of Gray and Scituate Streets.  The difference is that the Town can refuse to release the easement at Venner Road and thus protect the site and the neighborhood from this fate.   The neighbors of whom I asked advice about this matter were completely unaware of the attempt being made to remove the restriction and permit building.  They are very anxious about it and hopeful that Town Meeting will protect the area and keep it as they thought it would be when they purchased their homes.  It has been suggested that the family could avail itself of a reverse mortgage or move to a more appropriate home nearby rather than despoil the land and lose another lovely lot and yard for children.
 
It was suggested at the BOS meeting of Monday, May 8 that a Conservation Restriction on at least part of the land be considered a way to resolve the problem.  Clarissa Rowe then made the incorrect statement that a conservation restriction on a lot of that size could not be done and the only one she knew of was a lot of one quarter acre in Stoneham.  Perhaps she had a memory lapse because she and I have talked several times about the conservation restriction that my husband and I placed on a building lot right on her street – Brantwood Road.  That restriction is to prevent any building on the lot which is to be kept open in perpetuity.  Current rules would permit such restrictions for 30 years.  
 
It’s very important that the Town moves to protect the site and the Town’s interest in it because it is clear from a letter which Ms. Long, the daughter of the owners of 55 Venner Road, released to Town Meeting members on Sunday that the attorney representing the family is from the office which represented the Winchester developer, Michael Collins who did the McMansion development at the corner of Gray and Scituate Streets and other unfortunate development situations.  The Town got short-changed on release of a repurchase covenant at the request of this developer’s team at their Water Street Site.  Indeed as an argument in favor of releasing restriction at Venner Road Ms. Long refers to the release of building lines on Massachusetts Avenue to allow development under Article 16 of 2004 as setting precedent favoring release at Venner Road.  However, the only precedent that vote set was of a scam perpetrated on the Town – a “bait and switch” operation whereby the BOS and the Tow
 n Meet
ing voted affirmatively for the Article having been told that if they passed the article the historic Atwood house would be moved to one of the two sites (and also that some affordable units would be supplied).  However, after the article was passed the developer simply reneged on that commitment and the Town did not gain any of the promised benefits.  The Town Counsel and ARB had not secured adequate written protection.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/townmeeting/attachments/20060510/73bc42ab/attachment.html