Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/4/2020
WEST SPRINGFIELD – The West Springfield Town Council conducted a study session on Feb. 26 to consider appraisal issues regarding the Bear Hole conservation restriction (CR) proposed by MassAudubon and the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
Council President Brian Griffin explained that as a study session for the councilors to learn more about the situation, there would not be a public comment period. He also said that the scope of questioning would be limited to the appraisal value of the land.
Bob Wilber, director of land conservation for Mass Audubon, began his presentation by showing slides of Bear Hole and its wildlife, “to remind us all why we’re here.”
He told the council that the value of the CR, according to the appraisal by Jim O’Connor of the Westfield-based O’Connor Real Estate Associates, is $1,840,000. Mass Audubon is offering $300,000 in addition to the $700,000 offered by the DCR, which would total a $1 million payment to the town.
“A good portion of this property, but not all of it, is already protected,” Wilbur said. “We rarely, if ever, pursue properties that are already protected. We never offer payment to protect property that’s already protected – and it’s because Bear Hole is such a special place and so important to your community. We want to help you protect the property.” Wilbur said that partial protection is why his organization and the DCR are unable to offer the full appraised amount.
Jen Soper, a land protection specialist with the Department of Conservation and Recreation, said that the state obtains the appraisal to justify the expenditure and the DCR will need to get a second appraisal because they’re paying over $500,000.
“We always work with willing sellers. We never do an unfriendly taking of land,” Soper added.
O’Connor explained that the appraised value of the CR is the “estimate of loss in value to this property that would result from its encumbrance by a conservation restriction.”
To generate that number, O’Connor appraised each of the 34 parcels within Bear Hole and calculated an average price per acre. The property was appraised in its current status without the CR, and again as if the CR were in place. O’Connor estimated the value would drop from $2,725,000 to $885,000 after the CR.
The documents O’Connor provided to the council showed that much of Bear Hole is already under some form of restriction, either state Chapter 97, watershed protection (WSP) or natural heritage/endangered species protection (NHESP), and therefore not readily developable.
Councilor Nathan Bech asked how the CR would impact the value of undevelopable land. First, O’Connor said, “any development potential, now or in the future, is eliminated with the encumbrance of the CR. The second thing is that the conservation restriction allows for public access.” Without the CR, he said, the land has significantly more utility even though it’s not buildable.
With the exception of Parcel 23, all the land was considered “limited utility” and undevelopable.
Councilor Dan O’Brien asked what made Parcel 23 developable. O’Connor explained that the parcel, which is composed of approximately 10 acres, is located on the paved portion of Morgan Avenue, not covered under Chapter 97, WSP or NHESP, and was not flood-prone or in wetlands.
“If the evil politician came in, he could put his condos there right now?” O’Brien asked. O’Connor agreed.
Councilor Anthony DiStefano asked if it was safe to assume that if parcels are listed as having development constraints, “that it is unlikely, if not highly difficult to build in those areas?”
Town Attorney Kate O’Brien answered that it was unlikely, but the WSP is a local zoning ordinance that could be changed in the future. The NHESP is a state designation.
Referring to the acreage currently not under development constraint, DiStefano asked if it was correct to say only 51.38 acres are at risk of development.
O’Connor responded that the NHESP is an impediment to development and causes a lot of red-tape, but it does not make development impossible.
“Is it threatened for development? You could argue yes,” O’Connor stated.
Wilbur added that the NHESP designation will end on parcels if the species that prompted the designation die off or abandon the area.
O’Connor noted that other factors limiting development include a lack of road frontage and utility easement in one parcel.
Bech asked if any of the $1,000,000 payment is going to Holyoke since five of the 34 parcels that make up Bear Hole are within Holyoke’s borders. Attorney O’Brien said that while the land is in Holyoke, West Springfield owns it, and therefore no money would be going to the neighboring city.
At the end of the meeting, DiStefano announced that he had received an email with a link to a document from a self-identified “concerned resident” regarding the Bear Hole issue. DiStefano shared that email with the rest of the council, telling them they may find it interesting.
After it was brought up to him that this may have been an open meeting law violation, the councilor contacted the state attorney general’s office, which told him that while an email to the council was not necessarily a violation, DiStefano had to be careful not to offer an opinion in the correspondence. To rectify any possible problems DiStefano added the document he had shared to the minutes for the Feb. 26 meeting.