Dear Residents and Friends of Cumberland: On the subject of a new town Safety Complex, this is the current proposed ballot QUESTION that will be presented to the Secretary of State on or before Aug. 6 by the town of Cumberland: The QUESTION reads: Shall the Town Council authorize the construction of a new public safety building on land acquired by the town in 1972 from the College of Our Lady of the Atonement which at the time had a restriction that said land be solely for public uses and purposes? The property when acquired allowed for use for public use and purposes and is presently managed by that document entitled Conservation and Management plan. The Monastery Cumberland RI dated Oct. 20, 2004. This Management Plan may be amended from time to time to allow uses not inconsistent with easements and restrictions in effect at time of acquisition of the property. The land, by the way, IS being used for public use and purposes. What the question fails to state is that the 2004 Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenants (hereinafter Conservation Easement or Easement) specifically prohibits, among other things: 1) the subdivision or development of the Premises or the disturbance or change in the natural habitat in any manner; 2) The placement or construction of any new buildings, structures or other improvements of any kind… with the exception of those improvements located thereon; and, 3) and ditching, draining, diking, filling, excavating, dredging, mining or drilling, removal of topsoil, sand gravel, rock minerals or other materials, or any building of roads or change in the topography of the land in any manner except the maintenance of existing foot trails and operation and management of the drinking water supply. This Conservation Easement relates to all the parcels (A,B, and C—including property conveyed by the College of Our Lady of the Atonement—totaling approximately 525 acres, hereinafter the Premises) previously conveyed to the town. According to the Easement. The Easement specifically states, in accordance with its PURPOSE, and intent, that the Town will confine the use of the Premises to the uses as are consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement and the Conservation Management Plan developed by the Town. REGARDLESS of what the Management Plan directs, the Plan must reflect the Easements restrictive covenants, including no changes to the Premises. (Does anyone happen to have a copy of the Management Plan that they would be willing to share?) Regardless of how the Premises, specifically Parcel C (the parcel under threat of development) was conveyed to the town in 1972 (According to Marcia Greens 7/23/14 The Valley Breeze Newspapers article, concerning the acquisition history, Parcel C had no restriction on this parcels use except utility easements, town officials say), the Conversation Easement of 2004 is now the ruling document in terms of how the Premises will be maintained and retained forever in its open, natural, scenic, historic, ecological, or educational condition and to prevent any use of the Premises that will significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Premises. In other words, in 1972, the property had no restrictions (barring those stated above) so one could assume the Premises could be used for anything. However, the 2004 Conservation Easement changed that, and forever. NOW, we have restrictions, restrictions that are legally binding, in perpetuity. PLEASE understand the QUESTION posed by our elected officials. Not only is the QUESTION disingenuous, but it also has no place on a ballot. The Conservation Easement is a legal document, and the town of Cumberland should be barred from asking it, as the Easement stands on its own. PLEASE understand the QUESTIONs nuances, its subtext, its silence, its underhanded, sly construction. PLEASE understand what we will be giving away—valuable, protected land, that affords peace and quiet—and what we will be creating—continuous congestion and gridlock at an intersection that is already overtaxed by its 4 corners: CVS at one, two gas stations at another, a bank, coffee shop and liquor store (and auto center under construction) at the third, and a beautiful church on the 4th. Below the two gas stations is Daves Marketplace (shopping center/pad site including grocer, pharmacy, Dunkin Donuts, retail/business), abutting Bank of America and the Post Office. All of them running down Diamond Hill Road. And now, the town is asking for a safety complex across from the Post Office? A new police station, yes, we need. But not at this location. But a 12.5 million safety complex? Not so much. Not anywhere, really. Isnt it better, anyway, in a town this size, to have decentralized fire stations? PLEASE, people of Cumberland, attend this Thursday (7/31/14) evenings meeting at 7:00 pm, Town Hall. Let us hear your voice. Democracy works only if we participate.
Posted on: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:20:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015