Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select board moves to advance Kendrick Land Trust conservation purchase toward June warrant
Summary
After executive‑session discussions, the board directed staff to work with Kendrick Land Trust on a project agreement and prepare a June warrant article seeking roughly $33,000 (about half of a reported $66,000 purchase price) from the town's open‑space funds to support acquisition of a 27‑acre parcel contiguous with existing conserved land.
The Reedfield select board discussed a proposed conservation purchase by the Kendrick Land Trust for a parcel identified in materials as the Goucher property, described alternately in packet documents as 27 or 30 acres. Eric summarized prior executive‑session guidance and presented options for town involvement: the town could own fee simple with an easement held by KT, the town could hold the easement with KT holding title, the town could donate funds, or the board could decline involvement.
Eric said the working direction is to prepare a warrant article for the June town meeting that would ask the town to contribute approximately half the acquisition cost — about $33,000 of an overall $66,000 figure cited in meeting materials — and to rely on open‑space funds already approved by town meeting. “KT went ahead and found someone to buy the land on a temporary basis until the town could have time to put this on a warrant at a regular town meeting,” Eric told the board.
Board members discussed allowable uses and controls. The board noted this parcel would remain open land with hunting and public access consistent with neighboring conserved properties; that use profile was a reason to prefer a project agreement instead of a permanent easement, to better delineate allowable activities, maintenance obligations and tax treatment (the parcel would be taxed at wood‑lot/tree‑growth rates under the proposed approach).
The board asked Eric to work with KT to draft project‑agreement language and the warrant article, and to determine whether a separate public hearing is needed or whether the matter can be included as a distinct segment in the regular warrant hearing; members suggested earmarking time (for example, a 30‑minute window) for public discussion if the board chooses the consolidated warrant hearing.
No formal vote to commit funds occurred at the meeting; the board directed staff to return with proposed warrant language and next steps before final action at the town meeting.
