In a report to the selectmen this week, the Shaker Hills ad hoc committee identified the most urgent questions facing the town in response to plans to develop the Shaker Hills golf course. And it asked the board to deal with issues outside of its purview.
Of foremost importance, the report said, is to understand how the golf course’s 61B tax classification might affect the town’s ability to be first in line to buy the property: it’s not as automatic as some had believed, the committee discovered. The report also asked the selectmen to investigate alternate uses for the 163-acre parcel.
The committee was appointed by the selectmen to negotiate with owner-developer Woodland Co. about its plan to build 105 market-rate and 35 affordable homes on the Shaker Hills golf course. According to the selectmen’s charge, the group must “make sure the project is in keeping with the goals and tenets of Chapter 40B and the town’s affordable housing and master plans.”
Right now, the group is worried about the golf course’s Chapter 61B tax classification, specifically, the statute’s provision for giving a town the “right of first refusal” when a landowner plans to sell or change the use of its property. Under the 61B law, Classification and Taxation of Recreational Land, property owners pay reduced tax on their state-defined recreational land for as long as they are enrolled in the 61B program. It’s a tax incentive for people to keep their land open, say, for horses or a golf course. (Chapter 61A functions similarly, but for agricultural properties.) Owners can remove their property from the 61B program at any time, according to Harvard tax assessor, Angela Marrama.
The law is meant to encourage people to keep their land open, but 61B is supposed to have another benefit to the town: the right of first refusal. When a 61B-classified property is to be sold or converted to another use, the owner must first offer the property for sale to the town, but at fair market value. The town has 120 days to either buy the property, or easements to it, or to transfer its right-to-buy to a conservation group.
But the first-refusal provision is not open-ended: “Land taxed under this chapter shall not be sold for, or converted to, residential, industrial or commercial use while so taxed or within one year after that time unless the city or town in which the land is located has been notified of the intent to sell for, or to convert to, that other use.”
The ad hoc group wants clarity on those first-refusal limitations and has asked the selectmen to appoint a “specialized legal counsel” to provide a definitive answer as to where the town’s rights begin, and end.
“We, as a committee, are not charged with researching this, but the town most definitely needs clarity on this important question,” stated Committe Chairman Keith Cheveralls in a phone conversation after the meeting.
Attorney Francis DiLuna, an expert in 61B law and a partner in the Woburn firm of Murtha Cullina, brought some clarity to the question in a brief conversation last month with the Press. DiLuna reacted to a theoretical scenario in which a landowner with plans to develop the land himself removes the land from Chapter 61B and pays applicable rollback taxes (the difference between the fair market rate and the reduced rate afforded by 61B). From that point forward, he was asked, how long must the owner wait to develop the land without notifying the town of his intention and offering it the “right of first refusal?” One year, was DiLuna’s response. According to the law, he said, the landowner cannot sell or convert to another use without notifying the town until he has removed his property from the 61B tax classification and spent a full year paying taxes at full market rate. After that time, the obligation to invite the town to be first in line to buy the property expires.
The golf course’s owner, Woodland Co., has not publicly stated an intention to avoid alerting the town; however, recent changes to 61B law left some committee members unsure about the timeline and trigger specified in the newly revised statute. Moreover, language in the developer’s site eligibility letter, issued by MassHousing in August, indicates that Woodland may have sought advice from the state about its obligation to Harvard.
“The owner has control over whether the right of first refusal is ever triggered,” the MassHousing letter states, “considering such factors as declassification, payment of roll-back taxes, and timing.”
The site eligibility letter qualifies Woodland for financing and allows it to apply to the Harvard ZBA for a comprehensive permit.
On a related issue, the ad hoc committee asked the selectmen to appoint a separate committee to study alternate uses of the golf course, because the ad hoc’s charter does not permit it to do so.
It also requested an appraisal of the Shaker Hills land, and two parcels in Ayer that adjoin the golf course and are owned by Mill Corp. and Shaker Hills Golf Course, Inc., entities that are related to Woodland Co.
