Monday, August 24, 2009

How did we get here? (4)

Drayton: wants to add wording so that Residential is excluded and the developer is fighting it. They just agreed I think to change "uses" to "development". good.

Drayton: now they are discussing whether or not to take out "mining" as reasonably acceptable...?? it is out. curran: "I really think we have discussed mining enough."

Drayton: a bunch of things I missed or dont understand... legalese stuff.

There is a maintainence road? Not sure where... also something about working with the aercheology dept on something that needs a sign. Tom Rocco wants stronger language on forbidding ANY new structures on the land unless related to education, safety, and environment(?).

Drayton: put stronger language for motorized vehicle exceptions to the land.

Drayton: something about not being able to force public access... WVLT guy - they are not involved in maintainence beyond compliance to the easement. there are two portions, the wet side and the western portion which will have trails for the public. and curran confirms, that specification is part of the easement.

Terence - what happens when easements are violated? Fines? what is the mechanism. Are there any non-monetary remedies?

Curran: when does the issue of public access come into play? have you spoken with an entity to manage that piece? Developer: we have not spoken to anyone about it lately... but they will - curran asked him to read that part... i *think* they are saying all they have to do is "say" they will deal with the preserve later

Drayton: "You have taken this as long as you can?" Developer: "It is not your role". Curran is now asking Seth to speak so I think he will counter this argument.

Seth: comments to make stronger and clearer... Purposes clause needs work. And would like to see strong languages on public purposes. Paved pathes for accessiblity ONLY needed. Suggest- intent is natural setting.. need wording that cannot be misunderstood in 5, 10 years.

Tom Rocco: what about impermiable surfaces? lots of discussion about paving...

Seth - in terms of public access.. there needs to be something somewhere because everyone agrees it is the goal to have a preserve... this concept plan was presented during site plan review. there is tremendous interest in creating this... the next step is to move forward with the general public input, low impact, natural setting, should interact seemlessly with surrounding lands.

SOOOO - if the parties change in the meantime, we need a more forthright statement about the commitment to this project...

Developer - we wrote a letter 2 years ago saying it could be done with their ability to say yay or nay to what happens. Cynthia Rosenberg (?) - the WP board has liability issues with this and will not sign off in that way now.

Now the easement talks about precluding from things happening, not assuring they will happen.

Curran - is there any way that a later WP board could say no to this later on?

Rosenberg- YES.

Curran - With this language, can you get out of this?

Rosenberg - YES.

Developer lawyer - General public on private property creates liability issues.

Drayton: WP board has a particular point of view... they should get the insurance now to show good faith.

Curran: I really want to know - again, is there anyway they can get out of this?

Developer lawyer - If you can say unreasonably acted in getting the public access - not trying, they are not acting in good faith.

Drayton - it is common to get insurance on trail easements.

Seth - if it is just about the liability I agree that is a resolvable issue. But he still wants a letter of intent. Rosenberg - No.

Lawyer - not budging.

another Devo rep - the board is local as are the residents and he has faith that this will happen.

Rachel - heart goes out to the people who want to move into WP. site plan approval in 2007, why is the info just getting out now?

Devo lawyer - we have never even mentioned the EnCC as holding stuff up or otherwise

Rachel - well that is part of the problem... for example, the critter crossings..

Rosenberg - we see Muniz all the time (somebody interrupts) let's get back on track

Rachel - section - how are values set out in the easement? and with public access... why can't it say you have the value to make that happen? with a commitment.

Pollution protection has been added to the easement, good.

Linda w. - was Seth's language added about carry in/carry out?

The section on dumping - in or out?

Michael z. - In condition for C of O - last sentence reads that the easement must not proclude public access... since there is no mention in the easement, why not comfortable - the preserve drove the basis for the easement to begin with -- so why not specifically refer to open space committee language be a part?

WVLT - Not putting it in, using generics, means any non-profit, could be the entity, not just the open space committee.

Tom Rocco - but it is part of the agreement, this stipulation - now outside the conservation easement.... so it prevails in or out of the easement? Lawyers say yes.

hopefully wrapping up

Drayton - wants to go back to Rachel first - two more points:
Rachel - section one still not satisfactory - needs Seth's addition - biodiversity issues, the beaver needs to be specifically mentioned as part of conservation values
Drayton - she took out nan's report, but open to referring to it as not a planning report. Devo lawyers fighting it. Seth suggests "as documented by the Hudsonia report."

-article ten .... Rosenberg - we never said we would have this time of hashing out and we need this my tomorrow at 8am for a board meeting

Linda Welles - I feel very disrespected by this process... the timing, you are telling us you needs this by an 8am meeting... we scheduled this emergency meeting in the middle of summer for you

Devo lawyer - you are pushing us beyond the needed process and did not give us the needed materials

Linda - this is our job and you are rushing us and not letting us do it

Curran - this is a question of interpretation.

Drayton - I don't think Rachel's changes would change the intent of the document. She was doing nothing inappropriate.

Devo lawyer - We had an agreement and only needed this meeting because changes were being made. (HUH? kt IMO - they waited TOO long to do this and hence, the MESS.)

Curran - can we suggest stuff to add and leave it at that for now?

Devo lawyer - Yes.

Only a straw poll tonight, board will not vote to approve the easement for two weeks.

Rosenberg - our board has already voted, if VPB makes changes it needs to go back to another WP board for another vote

so wait -are they voting now because of that... seems that way, they are voting to approve the easement with the revisions from tonight

thank you and good night

kt tobin flusser 9:29pm

No comments: