Community Preservation Committee tables request to fund land preservation

SOUTHWICK — The Community Preservation Committee must reconsider its decision to approve an application from the Public Library to complete a project to enhance its grounds after learning it didn’t fall within CPC funding criteria and decided to table a funding request from couple to help them preserve a piece of property on Tannery Road during its meeting Wednesday.

“I think everybody agrees that we’d like to preserve that property one way or the other,” said committee member Dennis Clark during a discussion about a 37-acre property on Tannery Road that Christoper and Susan Mastroianni purchased last year to protect it from being developed.

Over the last two months, the Mastroianni couple has been appearing for various boards and committees seeking support for the effort to protect the property with the intention of filing an application with the CPC to fund the purchase of a conservation restriction on it.

In the application that was filed on Oct. 30, the Mastroianni couple requested approval from the committee for $312,200 as an open space and recreation investment for the town.

“The proposed project seeks to achieve multiple community goals through the acquisition and permanent protection of open space for both conservation and agricultural purposes while also creating new recreational opportunities for the public,” they wrote in the application.

The property, which is zoned R-40, is roughly 16 acres of farmland with wooded areas, wetlands, streams, and a pond identified as a potential vernal pool.

The back portion of the property abuts the Southwick Rail Trail.

Of the $312,200 requested, $155,000 would be used to purchase the conservation restriction with the balance being used to build a small lot to provide parking for those using the rail trail, grading a half- to quarter-mile hiking trail, and building a culvert or boardwalk for access to the back of property.

That culvert would be needed to cross over a small intermittent stream that intersects the property’s frontage on Tannery Road which is considered a wetland area.

The access to the property was one of the subjects of the members’ discussion.

Christopher Mastroianni said a representative from the state’s Department of Agricultural Resources told him that without access to the back portion of the property used for haying, it would disqualify it from being considered for an Agricultural Preservation Restriction.

He said the DAR representative told him the property needed to have “legal and practical access” to use an APR to protect it.

Committee member Dennis Clark asked if the 300 feet of frontage on Tannery Road didn’t count as access.

“Not in his opinion,” Christopher Mastroianni said.

“That doesn’t make any sense,” Clark responded.

Christopher Mastroianni was asked how the property was accessed now.

He said there is an easement that crosses the property on its north side that has been used for a “long time” and that he had attempted to purchase the easement, but it fell through.

“I’m not understanding why they wouldn’t allow that to be your access,” committee member Christopher Pratt said.

“I don’t know,” Christopher Mastroianni said, later adding that he and his wife were “not prepared” to build a structure over the intermittent stream which is called Kellog Brook.

Clark said that in his experiences with the DAR he’s found they can be “a lot more lenient” with APRs sometimes allowing streams to be forded, Pratt confirmed.

“Farmland does have more exemptions for wetland crossings. It’d be a lot easier,” Pratt said about pursuing an APR.

Clark, Pratt and committee member Russell Fox suggested the Mastroianni couple try approaching DAR again.

Christopher Mastroianni, after talking with Fox and from what he learned at the meeting, said he would reapproach DAR.

“Well, now that I know more, I can have a more intelligent conversation [about utilizing the APR to protect the property],” he said.

After a bit more discussion, the committee decided unanimously to table the application to find out if the APR would be the better route to take.

When the topic of the Public Library’s enhancement project began, CPC Coordinator Sabrina Pooler said she was still “trying to wrap her head around it.”

The “it” she was referring to was information the committee received from a state Community Preservation Act official that a funding application the CPC approved to complete the enhancement of the library’s grounds did not meet CPA criteria.

Not only that, but the CPC also shouldn’t have approved the library’s application for $20,659 to fund the first phase of the enhancement project, which was approved by Town Meeting in May 2024.

Essentially, the CPC can fund projects that are in permanent parks, like the splash pad or pickleball courts at Whalley Park, but the grounds of the library are not considered a park.

“This land is a building lot for the library, not a real park,” Pratt read from the CPA official’s memo, who added it was “an honest mistake.”

Using the 2024 allocation, the library was planning on purchasing percussion musical instruments to be installed on the right side of the grounds, story walk frames, a picnic table, and benches.

After the library’s first allocation, it learned it needed a little over $24,000 for concrete work needed for the instrument installation and story walk, which CPC approved last month.

The official said in the memo the money approved and allocated by the CPC in 2024 would be complicated to “claw back” calling it “problematic.”

Several options were offered to remedy the situation, including transferring that piece of library grounds to the Parks and Recreation Commission who would operate it as a park and approaching the Select Board about providing funding because the amount requested is not that large.

Pratt said at the CPC’s next meeting, options will be discussed.