Community Corner

Selectmen Set Date for Town Meeting, Referendum on Garage, Roads Projects

While numerous residents spoke against the town moving forward with a proposed plan for a $5.4 million town garage project, the Board of Selectmen Wednesday set town meeting and referendum dates for it as well as $6 million in major road projects.

If approved, the town would add the projects for “bonding,” in which the town sells municipal bonds and pays them back with interest over time, similar to a mortgage. They would be bonded in two parts with the $3.6 Million track, multi-use field and parking lot improvement project at the high school and $2.3 million of the $3.2 million partial roof replacement projects. (some of the roof project costs are reimbursed).

The spring referendum was set for 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on May 22 with a town meeting on May 9 at 7 p.m. in the Canton High School auditorium.

The garage project is for purchase, site work and construction of a town Public Works garage at 325 Commerce Drive.

Selectmen did approve separate questions for the projects, allowing qualified electors to vote on them individually. That was one aspect several residents at the meeting and prior to it advocated for after a bundled roads and 5 Cherry Brook Road garage project question was pulled from last fall’s referendum. The 5 Cherry Brook Road appraisals had come in lower than the purchase price.

The 325 Commerce garage property, located in an industrial park with few tenants, was one of several that came back to the Permanent Municipal Building Committee after the 6.75 million 5 Cherry Brook proposal dissolved.

Officials said they discovered that deeds for the property were not as restrictive as they had previously believed.

On March 6, selectmen authorize Chief Administrative Officer Robert Skinner to enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the property.

At a March 13 meeting, selectmen referred the new proposal to the Board of Finance but the meeting included objections from nearly two dozen Griswold Farms residents, who objected to the location, who made safety, aesthetic, environmental and economic arguments. The finance board later approved the projects for a referendum. 

Some three dozen residents were at this Wednesday’s meeting and comments focused more on the process and cost of the project.

“I’m really concerned at the speed of which this is moving along,” said David Daniel, later adding that he felt he was “getting railroaded as a citizen.”

It was an often emotional meeting with applause for speakers and residents at times questioning, sometimes loudly, why they could not provide feedback and ideas after the public comment period. 

Chief Administrative Officer Robert Skinner said that is not done at board meetings but that there would be an extensive presentation and chance for questions and feedback at the May 9 town meeting. 

Those interested can also find several documents related to the garage search on the town’s web site here. 

Among those speaking at the meeting was Economic Development Agency member Glenn Arnold, who read prepared remarks, alleging that the process has been “flawed and broken.” When Arnold used his allotted five minutes and some protested when selectmen would not let others concede their time to him. Other speakers then finished reading the document.

Arnold contended that many properties up for reconsideration were summarily dropped without adequate explanation or research.

He also alleged some ethics violations from selectmen. At a March 27 meeting, selectmen voted to ask the town’s Board of Ethics weigh in on whether Arnold and EDA Chairman Kevin Jackson have a conflict of interest in an EDA study of the project in light of their previous comments on the project and proximity to the site.

(Patch is working on a separate story about the ethics issue)



Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here