As Chair of the Plymouth Select Board, I would like to address questions and concerns regarding the Board’s recent 3-2 decision to waive the Town’s right of first refusal on the Landers property under Chapter 61.
This was a significant decision involving approximately 138 acres of land and competing community priorities. While reasonable people may disagree with the outcome, I believe it’s important for residents to understand how the Board approached this decision and why a majority ultimately voted to waive the Town’s right of first refusal.
The Town was notified several months ago that the owner intended to sell the property and had entered into a purchase and sale agreement for $5 million. Under Chapter 61, the Town had the option to purchase the property itself at the same price, transfer its right of first refusal to another entity, or waive its right and allow the sale to proceed.
The Board carefully considered each of these options.
First, we considered whether the Town should purchase the property. While many residents preferred to see the land permanently protected from development, the reality is that a $5 million acquisition would be a substantial financial commitment at a time when the Town faces many competing capital needs and fiscal challenges. A majority of the Board concluded that purchasing the property was not financially feasible.
Second, we considered a request from the Community Land & Water Coalition to transfer the Town’s right of first refusal. Because that right has significant value, the Board requested information regarding financing, acquisition plans, and the organization’s ability to complete the transaction. After reviewing the information provided, a majority of the Board did not believe there was sufficient certainty to transfer a right of such importance to the Town.
We also recognized that transferring the right of first refusal would not guarantee that the property would ultimately be acquired and preserved as many residents hoped. The seller is not obligated to negotiate with another group and could have chosen other options, including retaining the property until Chapter 61 protections expired and then pursuing a sale without any Town right of first refusal. In that scenario, the Town would have had no opportunity to influence the future use of the property.
Finally, we considered whether a waiver could be structured to secure meaningful public benefits while allowing the sale to proceed. Through discussions with the buyer, the Town negotiated a number of commitments that will advance community goals identified in Plymouth’s Comprehensive Plan.
These commitments include preserving at least 40 percent of the property as open space, protecting an important wellhead area, concentrating development in previously disturbed areas of the site, limiting earth removal activities, exploring pedestrian connections to Hedges Pond Recreation Area, constructing a new access road to reduce impacts on existing neighborhoods, and evaluating the feasibility of a wastewater treatment facility rather than relying solely on septic systems. The proposed development also focuses on creating starter homes, a type of housing that is sorely lacking in Plymouth.
Questions have also been raised regarding relationships between certain Board members and the buyer. Those Board member took all the legal steps necessary to disclose these relationships. Ultimately, each Board member was responsible for evaluating the proposal on its merits and voting based on what they believed was in the best interests of Plymouth.
Additional discussion has focused on legal matters involving the buyer that were resolved many years ago. While residents are entitled to consider any information they believe relevant, my vote was based on the options before the Town, the public benefits secured through the waiver, and what I believed represented the most responsible outcome for Plymouth.
I fully understand that some residents would have preferred that this land remain entirely undeveloped. I respect that viewpoint. However, after weighing the available options, I concluded that this decision achieved an appropriate balance between protecting important environmental resources, preserving substantial open space, expanding housing opportunities, and avoiding a significant financial burden on taxpayers.
Public officials are often called upon to choose between imperfect options. This was one of those cases. After careful consideration, I believe the Board’s decision serves the long-term interests of Plymouth, and I stand by my vote.
– Deb Iaquinto
Iaquinto is chair of the Select Board