A reminder - ConCom has enforcement power (they may not use it effectively, but they have it) for lands it manages (Conservation Commission Act). Does any other Board or non profit organization? As a reminder, nonprofits are not always the best option, example the Boy Scout Reservation. They refused 8 million for a CR. Why? So much for preservation!! I also think long range planning is involved here. What happens when the PUD issue is finished. Who will manage the oxbow and riverwalk/riverfront land? (probably the feds!!) What about Ford's Meadow? (another for SVT!!!) I personally think it is a shame for the ConCom to forgo its opportunity to be a real entity in town planning. Sorry if this offends anyone. I will now return to seclusion!!! Leslee
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Vassar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "susan linder davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "sarah donovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "paul braverman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "kenny miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "george bees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "g harting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "g bees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "don beers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "del mack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "bennet baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "a&h janisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "framingham neighbors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:19 AM Subject: brimstone > **more on brimstone - this is an important piece of the puzzle for open > space and the connection it makes with the wittenborg property and the DEM > land/boyscout property. it connects to the bay circuit trail that surrounds > boston. > > a suggestion was made by the special counsel for the planning board that a > tax could be imposed as each home was sold and used for a fund for the > maintenance/care of the open space property that would be transferred to > SVT. the assumption was the cost would be $1500 per home - not a huge > amount when you consider the price range of the homes to be built. there > are probably some other possibilities that need to be explored. other towns > might have established some other practice and SVT or other groups might > have additional ideas. > > the only person that seems to have discussed the issue of cost with SVT is > the lawyer for the developer. the planning board will be talking to them. > i second the suggestion that people call SVT for additional input. > certainly there would be costs to the homeowners annually for maintenance, > anyway, and no guarantee to the town that it wouldn't cause additional > problems/hassles for town depts to deal with. town employees time is money. > > > > enforcement concerns -as a member of the conservation commission pointed > out - homeowners can be some of the worst offenders in open space areas and > might not have much incentive to manage the trails. we've all seen examples > of the problems the town has when it comes to enforcement issues when > problems occur. all along it seemed to be represented that the conservation > commissions's recommendation for management of the open space would be > acceptable. > > > **the draft agreement - did say that the property for the water tank would > be given to the town and i didn't hear any argument about that last night. > > kathy vassar > > > [ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe > Archives available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ > For help send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web interface at http://frambors.syslang.net] [ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe Archives available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ For help send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web interface at http://frambors.syslang.net]
