2025 Templeton Annual Town Meeting, article 7, surplus sewer easement.
Know this, the developer has a permit from the state, MA DEP -Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. If you do not want a sewer pipe running thru town owned wetlands, vote no on that article.
I went to the office of development services, where one can find information concerning planning board, conservation commission and building permits, I asked about any plans for that project, I was told there are none that have been submitted or presented. I feel that someone is looking for a blank check and article 7 should be voted down until the town residents know what is actually planned to be built. You know, go to planning board and lay down a plan for X number of homes or apartments/condos, etc. I was told they have the road frontage required to get a permit, but that is all I was able to get.
An answer to one of my questions regarding conservation on this subject: "On the Article, if the Town Votes NO - the Engineer for the applicant has said they would proceed forward with subdivision plans that involve septic systems."
Answer to another question on proposed project: Yes. Each proposed septic system would be subject to a perc test. The proposed subdivision would also have to pass through Conservation and the Planning Board's site plan review for subdivisions.
Over the years the biggest failure of this town has been the failure to plan, in my estimation. There has been some talk of building a centralize fire station in town. The lot the Highway Dept. is on would be a perfect spot for that. We need to look ahead whenever we are asked to vote on any question. I think we have to look at what we have now and what we could do in the future. Once a project like this is in place, there is no chance of changing our minds. It's there, and it's not going to move. I think we should consider this before we impact town property by making a decision we won't be able to change.
ReplyDeleteVote No. Don't give them a blank check. But not so we can build an unnecessary fire station. Vote No because there is no benefit to the taxpayers and there is risk that there may be some unknown hazard, risk or loss of use that would harm future taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteJust have to add my two cents to your comment. "Unnecessary fire station" I do not agree and this is why. If you live in East Templeton, near the Gardner line or where I do on the end of South Road and your house is on fire how long do you think the new fire truck if going to get there from Baldwiville. A new fire station is needed. It could include Emergency Management along with it. The fire station in B, is in a flood zone. Part of the building actually was damaged in the 1938 flood. It makes no sense to spend money to fix it. Templeton Fire Station is hardly adequate. A centrally located building makes the most sense. The area of the Highway Department would be perfect.
DeleteIf any fire station could save people or your home, you could argue that point. But the truth is, Fire Departments are big boys with expensive toys. Police cannot protect you from a home invasion, so get proficient with a gun. Firefighters cannot protect you from a fire, maintain your home fire detection system for early warning.
DeleteVoting No! I as a taxpayer am not concerned with saving a developer money by letting them utilize a lot owned by taxpayers. I am not concerned that putting in septic systems will be more expensive and time consuming for the developer.
ReplyDeleteHow many structure can be built with septic's compared to with public sewer? I'm guessing this is the main reason for the Article.
Nothing good can come from passing this article. Pay attention to the track record of these "developers". There's nothing in it for the taxpayers.
ReplyDelete