Chelsea Debates
The Right Place
For Tsown Garage
By Cornelia Cesari

The Chelsea Selectboard’s town garage meeting on July 15 initially drew 20 residents to the Town Hall. The crowd swelled to over 50, with clusters lingering in heated discussion after the meeting.

Chair Andy Pomerantz gave the attendees a summary of the issue. He explained that it seems clear that the primary division of opinion is not over the need for a garage or necessarily even construction or budget. The division is primarily around location.

Currently, there are three apparent possibilities:

Heath Field Site

This site, along with the (now unavailable) creamery building, has been the main focus of the Facilities Committee for the last three years. Preliminary plans were drawn up which take into account the concerns of aesthetics, safety issues and parking needs.

In order to accommodate both the recreation fields and a garage, the committee felt the sand pile would need to be moved north and began negotiating a long term lease for a small tract of land from Bobby Button, the abutting landowner.

The main advantage to this site is that the town already owns the land. The sand pile is there and the town road crew stores some equipment at the water treatment facility. It is also somewhat centrally located and easily accessible.

The major concern about the Heath field site is the Heath Recreation fields. Can the two coexist? Pomerantz feels that the proposed plan is an acceptable compromise which makes the site safer in some ways by delineating traffic flow and parking patterns. He acknowledges that some feel that using the Heath field compromises the safety of our kids and "undoes" the work done by the Recreation Committee over the years.

Many voters at the meeting felt either that the two were mutually exclusive, or didn’t want to risk jeopardizing the recreation fields. Sherri Richardson said, "I firmly believe we need a garage. But I am very pro-Heath field and leaving it in its current status, even improving it. The Heath field has, ironically, brought the community together. Because it is not on school property, more people come by and watch the games."

Emily Newman agreed. She first admitted that she had originally wanted the garage on that site, but that she has changed her mind. Even though it doesn’t directly impact her family, her main concern is for the fields. "I learned recently that there is an endowment for the Heath field of over $100,000. It is totally self-sustaining.

"When you go by, and see that field, it is absolutely beautiful. When you come into town and see that, it is just beautiful…other than the sandpile. And the sewer plant, but that could be hidden with trees."

Linda Kuban has changed her tune as well. "I’ve always thought, ‘Why buy a piece of property when we’ve got one?’ Driving by and seeing the rec fields, the games, the summer camps, etc. It is offering unbelievable things to our kids, and hasn’t cost the town anything. There is no question in my mind that the rec field is a jewel. I think if we have this other option then we need to consider it…Something needs to be done and it can’t be at the cost of the rec field."

However, Betsy Button asked, "I wonder why the rec committee are worried that the field will disappear?"

John Parker, chairman of the committee, stated, "We’ve taken the position that whether the garage is there, or the sand pile, that it will affect the future of the rec fields in 25 or 50 years, with growth and development.

"To save the field for future generations, we feel that it’s not a good idea to put the garage and sand pile there."

Looking ahead, there are a couple of issues. One is that, should the treatment plant fail, the engineered location for its expansion is onto the current T-ball field. There is no extra room at the location for contingencies.

Neil Kennedy praised, "It is probably the most successful thing I’ve ever seen in Chelsea. It has brought more enjoyment than anything I’ve ever seen. It hasn’t cost the town one red cent." He added simply, "but trucks and kids don’t mix very well."

He then asked for a straw vote. The selectboard chose not to conduct a straw vote. Pomerantz feels certain that the town is evenly and firmly split, pro- and con- Heath Field site. He pointed out that a survey was conducted recently which garnered nearly 400 responses, more than would a vote.

Beth Ann Finlay of the facilities committee pointed out that the question at that time was: Creamery vs. Heath Field, so referencing the survey is irrelevant.

Other Options

The "Mullen property" on Route 110, is south of the village on the east side

At their June 24 meeting, the selectboard entertained an offer by Charlotte Mullen to sell 8.4 acres to the town for a town garage. She said it has been perc tested and all 8 holes passed, but they recognized more site evaluations would need to be conducted to determine the site’s feasibility. Mullen asked for an agreement within 90 days at $140,000.

The "Brian Hayward property" is on East Randolph Road, near the power lines.

When the current facilities committee formed three years ago, this parcel was considered, along with many others. At that time, the asking price, according to the board, was about $150,000. A buyer’s agent reviewed the property and had several concerns: rights of way with CVPS; the tight corner coming from the Randolph side; visibility for trucks pulling out. There was also a feeling that, for the price, just a small portion (three to four acres) was considered "usable."

Caleb Rick presented an agreement from Brian Hayward, offering the land at $65,000. He said the offer is good for 90 days. The cost of an initial site evaluation would be about $4500-6500.

While agreeing that the location is much more attractive at the new price, Brown pointed out that if there is a visibility issue (below the 1000 foot minimum) for trucks pulling out, that poses a problem. He seemed to favor this property over the other two options, however.

Throughout the meeting, questions were raised about how the selectboard would proceed.

Richardson asked for a vote with several options.

Pomerantz and Finlay shared that they had researched the point, and the Secretary of State informed them that for a bond vote, there can be only two options: yes or no.

"But this isn’t a bond vote," insisted Richardson. "This is about location. Vote for location, then put that up for a bond vote."

"I am satisfied that there is a solid division in this community," responded Pomerantz. "You will get something from the selectboard, but it will not be a straw vote." Doug Lyford plans to research the legal issues behind multi-option ballots.

Garage Time Line

(In addition, at a special town meeting about 3 years ago, a less thorough plan for the Heath Field site was defeated)

2002: Doug Lyford spoke in support of an article to authorize the selectmen to build a town garage. Craig Byrne amended article to ask the selectboard to make a plan to build a town garage, which was passed.

2003: Motion to approve $120,000 to build a garage on the Heath property. Jack Johnson made motion not to consider it and it was passed over without a vote.

2004: Article to see if the town will authorize the selectboard to construct a town garage. Marilyn Childs pointed out that, as worded, the selectmen would have to roll up their sleeves and build it themselves.

The motion was amended to authorize the selectboard to contract to construct a new garage. Discussion ensued, reulting in a return to the original motion, which was defeated 88-51.

2005: To raise $50,000 to place in town garage reserve fund, passed.

2006: To raise $50,000 to place in the town garage reserve fund, passed.

2007: To raise $50,000 to place in the town garage reserve fund, passed.

2008: To raise $50,000 to place in the town garage reserve fund, passed.