Neighbors press town over Duval Fields conservation restriction; CPC and Buzzards Bay Coalition defend climate and townwide benefits

Town administrator Cody Haddad and Community Preservation Committee chair Buddy Baker Smith presented Article 4 as a request to appropriate $575,000 from CPC unrestricted reserves to the Dartmouth Conservation Commission to acquire a permanent conservation restriction on Duval Fields, a roughly 2.5-acre parcel at 4 Tannery Lane.

Haddad told the information session the restriction would be held in perpetuity by the conservation commission and that the funding is intended to purchase development rights, not land. “This is again just the conservation restriction for that parcel,” Haddad said, adding that a park could be created on the land as-of-right under town zoning whether or not the restriction passes.

The presentation drew extended public comment from dozens of abutters and Russell’s Mills residents, many of whom said they were not aware of the project until very recently and urged greater neighborhood engagement. Doug Balder, a Russell’s Mills resident, said he had circulated a 36-signature letter opposing turning the property into a public-access park and reported that a Buzzards Bay Coalition representative had acknowledged the project could lead to public access.

“We circulated a letter opposing the turning of this property into a public access park,” Balder said. “There’s a lot of opposition to this project.”

Neighbors cited parking and traffic constraints on Tannery Lane and nearby streets, potential impacts to wildlife and the village’s historic character, and questions about whether demolition of an existing house on the parcel is anticipated. Chris Hall, another abutter, urged caution about converting the site into a destination given observed problems at nearby Russell’s Mills Landing, including off-leash dogs, litter and excessive visitation during peak seasons.

Opponents also pointed to the Russell’s Mills Historic District Commission’s prior review; several speakers said the commission voted to deny an application to remove a house on the property and questioned whether required procedures had been followed. Haddad responded that he had been informed the demolition matter had been “constructively approved” because the historic commission did not file required materials with the town clerk’s office, and he offered to follow up on procedural questions.

Supporters and project proponents framed the measure as conservation-driven. Melissa Haskell, who identified herself as the town moderator and a member of the Buzzards Bay Coalition board (speaking as a private citizen), said the parcel is low-lying and valuable for sea-level rise mitigation and salt‑marsh migration. CPC chair Buddy Baker Smith said the committee evaluates projects for townwide benefit and alignment with the town’s open-space, recreation and resilience plans.

Baker Smith explained the CPC’s statutory role: vet proposals for CPA eligibility, review consistency with town planning documents, and recommend projects that provide broad public benefit. “We bring it forward to town meeting … but I want to be clear, this town meeting will be the ones who need to weigh this and decide,” Baker Smith said.

Several residents pressed for clarifications about ownership and deed language. Haddad said he believed the Buzzards Bay Coalition had closed on the property and that a deed exists, but multiple residents reported differing information. Haddad offered to check and provide definitive ownership and deed details before the Town Meeting vote on June 2.

The information session did not include a vote. Haddad repeatedly emphasized the forum was informational and that Town Meeting, not staff or CPC, will debate and decide the article at the scheduled meeting.

What happens next: town officials offered to supply deed and parcel documentation and encouraged continued conversation at Town Meeting on June 2, when members can debate and vote on the conservation restriction appropriation.