2004-Annual Town Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IF Town has already paid good and valuable considera- Report of the tion for the aforementioned site by reason of its South Cape Beach Advisory respective promises and covenants as contained in the 1981 Agreement. Committee In regard to "Access to the Site", the Committee unanimously approved that the Town would accept To the Honorable Board of Selectmen Wills Work Road in its present condition,but wants an and The Citizens of the Town of Mashpee easement over said road extending from the current access to Wills Work Road and crossing State property The South Cape Beach State Park Advisory if necessary to the site, at least 30 feet wide with the Committee ("Committee") at its meetings during the right to improve said road as it deems necessary, and year 2004 considered and made various recommend- the right in the future to create a parking lot so as to dations relative to the use and management of the provide adequate parking for the people of Mashpee South Cape Beach State Park ("Park") and its amen- and the general public. ties. Former Chairman Kirsner stated that one of the TEN ACRE SITE—WAQUOIT BAY concerns of Rep. Patrick was the obligation of"DCR" (formerly DEM) to provide an "improved access" As stated in prior annual reports,paragraph 17 of which would subject them to a financial obligation the Amended Agreement between the Common- they likely would not satisfy due to present alleged wealth of Massachusetts("DEM")(now DCR)and the financial constraints. Thus, the aforementioned Town of Mashpee ("Town") dated June 29, 1981 "Committee Vote" would relieve "DCR" of this oblig- obligates"DEM" (now DCR)to transfer the above site ation. to the"Town"for the purpose of a boat launch facility. "DEM" (now DCR) is further obliged to furnish an Former Chr. Kirsner pointed out that paragraph improved access road to the site. There are no condi- 17 of the 1981 Agreement made no reference to tions imposed upon the "Town" to effectuate this "DCR", formerly DEM, to control the access to the transfer, nor are there any monetary obligations site. The "Committee" unanimously voted that the imposed upon the "Town". Town would have exclusive rights to control ingress and egress to the site and to establish its independent It is to be noted that paragraph 17 of the afore- gate policy. mentioned "Agreement" further provides in substance that in furtherance of"DEM"'s (now DCR) obligation The Committee unanimously voted that the to transfer title of the ten acre site to the"Town"with- "Town" would not be obligated to place the property out any monetary obligations and without any condi- under the jurisdiction of the Conservation tions whatsoever. "The Depart-ment ("DEM") (now Commission or any other agency. That the Town will j DCR) will initiate and support legislation,transferring agree that appropriate restrictions be placed in the title of the site to the Town of Mashpee. In the event deed requiring that the site be used for passive recre- that such legislation fails of passage, the Department ation only. That the restrictions that will be applied will lease said land to the Town of Mashpee for a are those that are contained in the Land Bank period of ninety nine years for the nominal considera- Legislation. tion of one dollar." After a March 12, 2004 meeting with Selectman It however is the position of"DEM" (now DCR) David Leveille, Christine Gault (Reserve Manager as represented by its counsel Nicholas Vontzalides, WBNERR), Nicholas Vontzalides (DCR Counsel)to that it was internal policy of the Executive Office of discuss the votes of the "Advisory Committee" re: "DEM" (now DCR) and the Legislature, that land Ingress,Egress,Parking,Legislation,etc.,it was stated transfers be for market value and related costs. Mr.Leveille would write a letter to Christine Gault rel- ative to the position of the Board of Select-men rela- Mr. Kirsner, former Chairman of the tive to the 10 acre site. Christine Gault has received an t "Committee", has reasserted the firm opinion of the unsigned copy of the report. It would appear that j "Committee" that the transfer of the land, as stated in the Board of Selectmen have now assumed respon u paragraph 17 of the Agreement did not contem-plate, sibility for future 10 acre site discussions. The ji nor infer that the Town would be obligated to pay any Committee feels that it's input is still important to th e monetary consideration. He further stated that the resolution of the 10 acre site transfer from the DCR I 130