Comments on: Owner wants to develop land at Stonybrook Golf Course

By: Freddie Gillespie

Freddie Gillespie — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:32:55 +0000

Marty
I was trying to provide relevant information from a knowledgeable source. My comment was only relaying what the Director of Water Supply for DCR at the State’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs had told me. It is the Water Supplier MWRA that considers the Sudbury Reservoir to be the back-up water supply, and not my opinion. That is why the land was protected in the first place and why DCR will continue to fight to protect it in the future.

By: Marty

Marty — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:58:32 +0000

Freddie,

What a load of enviro – cra*! Nobody in their right mind would drink that water you refer to as “an active backup water supply.” They don’t want folks fishing in it due to the contaminated sediment. You’d have to boil it forever to be safe.

Sullivan knew what he was buying when he bought that land. He should have to stick to the deal and honor the restriction. That’s all that matters.

By: Laurie

Laurie — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:11:20 +0000

My understanding is that a CR can not be overturned for development purposes – is this something new? Why is this even a discussion?

By: Freddie Gillespie

Freddie Gillespie — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:21:14 +0000

The land of Stony Brook Golf Course was originally deed restricted in 1901 to protect the water and watershed of the Sudbury Reservoir. My information from the Director of Water Supply at DCR is that the deed restriction is valid and enforceable and not easily broken
The Sudbury Reservoir is an active backup water supply and is the only backup for 2 ½ million people. MWRA could turn that water on today if they needed to. They are very interested in continuing to protect the reservoir and it’s watershed. DCR will work to ensure that the deed restriction is maintained.
While a lot of the land surrounding the Sudbury Reservoir has been developed, DCR will continue to actively manage and protect all of the watershed land they have jurisdiction over – including the deed restriction on Stony Brook Golf Course.

By: John

John — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:21:43 +0000

Wow Matt……did you ever stop and think that although there are deadbeats who know how to manipulate the system, there are people out there who scrape to exist below the poverty level?

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:55:38 +0000

First of all the land in question was and still is wetlands. The land was filled to make the golf course. Who does Kevin Sullivan know to get the land to perk? The neighborhood was fine thank you, before the new houses were built and now we need more to make it finished? Is the traffic (2 cars per house) all going to travel down Valley Road (good luck with that) or up Kallander Drive to Meadow Lane. Hey, DPW you are going to have to plow better if that happens…

By: Matthew Brownell

Matthew Brownell — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:01:53 +0000

Why not allow a builder to apply for development of the golf course under Chapter 40-B . . so Southborough makes it’s “Affordable Housing” quota ; i.e., the mandatory and confiscatory shakedown of taxpayers brought to us by a very creepy hegemony of Socialist Progressives and multi-generational deadbeats??

By: Debbie

Debbie — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:01:35 +0000

A deal is a deal. Kevin agreed to the restriction. I suspect “the neighborhood” would feel pretty strongly that best way to “finish off the neighborhood” is to keep it as it is. Looks like Kevin needs to find someone who wants to buy a small golf course – a nice little retirement venture for the right person!

By: John Boiardi

John Boiardi — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:48:36 +0000

Suzanne,

Two points. There isn’t enough uncommitted money left within the CPA regulations to support your suggestion. Second, talk to officials in Natick about their course, Sassamon Trace. It has become a serious taxpayer burden.

By: John Boiardi

John Boiardi — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:39:51 +0000

In my opinion the purchase of the air rights to the Cestnut Hill land for $5,000,000 was the most underhanded deal in the history of the town. The way the town meeting was minipulated by a few savy people that changed previous town warrants to use money designated for other purposes still boils my blood. The five million dollar debt is like a lead weight on the towns finances. So much more could be done with the CPA money going toward Chestnut Hill. I would like a show of hands of the townspeople who are getting their monies worth from the Beals land. What are the metrics that support the expenditure???? Be careful because their is movement afoot to spend $3,000,000 to remove about 20 utility poles in downtown Southborough. Proponants can shuffle town meeting warrants via ammendants and before you know it we are in deeper debt. It’s like a three shell monti game.