A plan to swap some hilly town-owned land for two smaller, flatter pieces of conservation land suitable for playing fields is “off the table”— for now.
That’s according to Town Administrator Tim Bragan, who told the Conservation Commission at its Thursday night, Sept. 20, meeting that the Select Board was assessing the need for additional fields and would be back with a “revised request” sometime in the future.
Bragan’s update was greeted with skepticism by commission members and the more than two dozen abutters and concerned citizens who filled the seats in upper Town Hall to contest the proposal.
Two weeks ago Bragan came to the Conservation Commission proposing the town swap the 32-acre town-owned Warila land on Stow Road for approximately 15 acres of conservation land to create two new sports fields, one on roughly 6 acres of Abbot-Reed-Powell land on East Bare Hill Road near the intersection with Brown Road, and the 6-acre Stone land on Old Mill Road. Bragan also proposed that the town take ownership of the Reuben Reed land on Fairbank Street. Commission members took no vote on the proposed swap at that Sept. 6 meeting. Instead, they asked Bragan to come back once Town Counsel Mark Lanza had finished reviewing the deeds and other documents pertaining to the land.
Since it was first floated, the land swap has been vigorously debated on Nextdoor, and Select Board members have received letters, emails, and other critical commentary from residents opposed to the proposal. A large contingent was present at last week’s Sept. 18 Select Board meeting, at which board members backpedaled on their plan to put the land swap on October’s Special Town Meeting warrant. There were even more opponents present at the Sept. 20. ConCom meeting. The topic was also discussed at an earlier Monday, Sept. 17 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, at which representatives of school and town athletic associations were present.
“So where is the proposal now?” East Bare Hill Road resident Jim Lee, a member of the audience, wanted to know at the Sept. 20 meeting.
“There is still a need for fields in this town,” answered Bragan. The Select Board would be reviewing what’s needed and would be coming back “later on” with a proposal. “Not anytime within the next two to three months, or even next spring,” he said
But ConCom member Wendy Sisson wasn’t satisfied with that answer. Had the proposal presented to the commission two weeks earlier been withdrawn? she asked.
“There never was a formal proposal,” said Bragan. Sisson looked astonished. Hadn’t the Select Board voted unanimously on Sept. 5 “to move forward on the land swap?” asked Sisson. “There was no formal proposal,” insisted Bragan.
Formal or not, the minutes of the Sept. 5 Select Board meeting state that the board did vote “to move forward,” and a Press recording confirms that Bragan told the board he expected ConCom to vote at its Sept. 6 meeting the following night.
Even if the proposal was informal, said Sisson, it was a proposal that was approved by the Select Board at a meeting. “Is that request, or whatever you want to call it, withdrawn?” If not, she added, the commission would need to decide whether to take any action “to allay the fears” of the neighbors of the Powell land and other parcels.
“There [was] no action being requested of the board at the last meeting or tonight,” replied Bragan. “There is no request being made for the Powell land, the Stone land, or the Reuben Reed land. The Select Board wants to assess the need for fields and come back later with a proposal.” Meantime, he said, Town Counsel Mark Lanza is reviewing the deeds of those parcels to determine what restrictions on their use might apply.
Lee wanted assurance that any future proposals would be well publicized, including mailings to abutters. “We don’t want to worry about what might happen every two weeks when there might be [a Select Board or Conservation Commission] agenda item to pull land out of conservation.” Sisson promised on behalf of the commission they would do a better job of informing residents and abutters in the future.
Removing conservation land not easy
Conservation land is protected by Article 97 of the state constitution, and the state’s land disposition policy makes it difficult to remove or change the use of protected open space. Changing the use of any portion of the Powell or Stone or Reed land would require a unanimous vote of the Conservation Commission, a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting, and a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature.
Several attendees at the Thursday ConCom meeting spoke against the now-tabled proposal, urging the Select Board to consider fields at Devens and to act on Open Space Plan data that shows voters are willing to pay for the purchase of additional conservation land. Joe Reynolds, the new fields liaison for the Parks and Recreation Commission, called for an honest, data-based assessment of how many additional athletic fields are needed, for what uses, at what frequency. And he said his commission was the appropriate town board to do that study. Other speakers warned that removing conservation land, whether gifted or sold to the town, set a bad precedent, one that Agricultural Commission Chair Kerri Green said “was wrong.” Those sentiments were echoed in a statement read by Peter Dorward, vice president of the Harvard Conservation Trust board of trustees on behalf of his board. “We oppose the removal of Article 97 lands without considering alternate solutions and demonstration of needs,” it said.
Solving a problem
In an interview this week, Select Board member Stu Sklar, who had asked Bragan and Land Use Administrator Liz Allard to craft the original proposal, said the Select Board was trying to solve a difficult problem. “Harvard needs more fields,” he said, adding that the now-on-hold plan would solve a number of problems: two new fields, public parking for the Powell land, and a 32-acre addition to an isolated parcel of conservation land that would provide a corridor and access to the area. “I’m trying to solve a problem,” he said.
If there was a common theme among statements by residents who attended the Select Board and ConCom meetings last week, it was a perceived absence of process in formulating the original swap. Jim Lee described the plan as “hasty and ill-conceived.“ And Sidney Blackwell of Willow Road said at Tuesday’s Select Board meeting that she was shocked she hadn’t heard any board member questioning the steps taken to create it. Did the board talk to residents beforehand? she asked. Did it talk with the historical society? Did it talk “in depth” with the Conservation Commission? “I would like to see a process that is more public,” Blackwell said, and she feared the town was moving in a direction where there was “less voice” for citizens.
