  |
|||
July
5, 2005 Citizens of Killingworth, friends and neighbors, there is certainly a great deal going on in our town these days. There are committees to study this and committees to study that. But, it seems to me, the most studies by far comprise land use and ball fields. Land use for open space. Land use for ball fields. Land use for schools. Land use for developments, i.e. single house parcels or cluster housing and, of course, the economic and environmental impact of each and every one of them. After much thought and discussion with people on both sides of the fence, I decided to address the "Bosco" property. Why? For one thing I was among those Land Use people who walked the property the very first time to determine if it was feasible to buy it. We needed additional ball fields, tennis courts and passive recreation in addition to what was provided at Sheldon Field. Townspeople recognized that we were a growing community. However, our vision of recreation facilities in 1998-99 was certainly not on the large scale many would be seeking just a few years later. What really has me distressed is the decision recently made at a Selectmen's Meeting to turn down $180,000.00 of State grant money for an easement on the part of the Bosco land that abuts the state forest. How can we citizens of Killingworth accept an arbitrary decision by just two officials that would be better suited to a referendum? The Board of Selectmen had plenty of time to put their cards on the table. To some of us in town it looked like a quick switch from a previously declared stance. Our Town Charter states that a Special Town Meeting must be called for any expenditure over $10,000.00. The money in question is not an expenditure, so the requirement does not apply. Nonetheless, it is money we weren't given the opportunity to accept or refuse. The call of the original meeting to decide whether to buy "Bosco" specified buying the property as open space. Those who favor rejecting the grant, as I understand it, hang their hats on that. But the original referendum to buy the property passed because, after much discussion about the town needing ball fields, tennis courts and passive recreation as well as possible uses for the house and outbuildings, the question voted on did not specify open space. These additional uses had been envisioned by the Land Use commissions, i.e. Planning and Zoning, Inland Wetlands, Conservation and other interested parties when the entire site was first walked. These ideas were well publicized at the time. One objection to accepting the grant voiced at the recent Selectmen's meeting was fear of hunters roaming through the area from the adjoining State Forest. As I understand it, Killingworth would retain the right to regulate hunting on its property. I also see no reason why an agreement could not be reached with the State limiting hunting through a lottery system with permits being issued at the Town Office Building, as it has been regulated in the State Forest adjoining my land. Another objection that was raised was that we might need more acreage for the adjacent new school to meet the per-pupil State requirement as enrollment increases. Looking at the map of the site I still don't see why this objection can't be resolved. Someone else has suggested that we sell the house, barn and five acres to someone who would like to restore and live in an historic, 17 th Century home. We could use the money realized from the sale for whatever project is needed at the site. That is an intriguing idea that could be pursued even if the grant were accepted. I'd hate to see that lovely homestead demolished. Therefore, for the reasons listed above, I contend that if the Board of Selectmen does not reconsider their action, we need to circulate a petition requesting another town meeting to revisit the issue at public referendum. Let the people decide whether or not they want to accept the grant after a clear discussion of the conditions attached to its acceptance. |
Committee Members KDTC Website
ARCHIVES |
||
|
© 2005 | |||
