Griffin's Dairy Opposition

12/20/2006

Board of Selectmen
Town of Abington
500 Gliniewicz Way
Abington, MA 02351

Dear Members of the Board:

      I am writing to persuade the board to accept the findings of the Griffin’s Dairy
Committee and place the Griffin’s Dairy property in a trust so that it may be preserved as
open space. As evidenced by the most recent proposal of the Abington Middle School
Site Selection Committee, the Griffin’s Dairy property is now, and may in the future be,
threatened by agendas that are contrary to the originally intended purpose of keeping
this property as open space. Acceptance of the recommendations of the Griffin’s Dairy
Committee can end these present and potential threats. My intent in this letter is to shed
light on what was the original intent for the use of Griffin’s Dairy, and how that finding of
such intent is compelled by the totality of the circumstances surrounding its purchase.

      Discerning the original intent for the use of the Griffin’s Dairy property is
accomplished by examining the statute under which property was purchased, the intent of
the grantors (the Griffin Family), the actions of the town, and the deed by which title to the
property was taken.

      The town meeting warrant article by which Griffin’s Dairy was purchased states that
the purchase was made pursuant to MGL 61A.   This statute grants a right of first refusal
to the town to purchase agricultural and horticultural property that has benefited from a
real estate tax benefit because of farm use.   MGL 61A also states that a town can either
purchase the property or have a designated committee make the purchase.   It further
states that “(a)fter a public hearing, said city or town may assign either of said options to
a nonprofit conservation organization…Such assignment shall be for the purpose of
continuing the agricultural or horticultural use of the major portion of the property”
(emphasis added).    To me, this language clearly contemplates and mandates that a
municipal purchase of agricultural and horticultural property be done to maintain the
“major portion” of the property in its agricultural and horticultural (i.e. open space) state
and not for any other purpose. When the residents of Abington adopted this article and
chose to pursue the town’s rights under the very clear and easily understood MGL 61A,
they confirmed that the purchase of Griffin’s Dairy for open space and not for public
buildings.

      The official town meeting notes and minutes related to the Griffin’s Dairy purchase,
available at the Abington Town Clerk’s Office, point to the clear conservation/open space
intent behind the purchase. In these notes, Selectman Joseph Shea discussed “possible
grant money available for ‘open space plan’ [for Griffin’s Dairy and] when completed [it]
should be left preserved as is.”    In addition, Abington resident Lauren Peruzzi stated that
the “town should start protecting open space.” After Article 30 passed, allowing exercise
of the right of first refusal, the discussion continued to focus on and support an open
space intent for the purchase when a Mr. Ewell asked about “how [one] buy[s] for open
space-then sells.”    At this time, your predecessor board members stated that the
“Selectmen want committee [Griffin’s Dairy Committee] to determine best use of the
property-possibly sell one or 2 lots [to] bring down cost of land [Griffin’s Dairy].   At best,
this discussion expressed a possible development of only a minute portion of the
property, not on the scale that the Middle School Site Selection Committee or others have
proposed, intending to keep the “major portion” as open space, as the statute requires. It
is very clear to me, as it is to others, that the totality of the town meeting discussion, as
reflected in the 61A procedure, is that preservation of the vast majority if not entirety of
the property as open space was intended.

      The intent of the Griffin Family was made clear to me in a phone conversation I had
with Mr. Griffin in the spring of 2006. I have no reason not to believe that this present
statement of intent is any different than it was in 1998 or at any time since. Mr. Griffin told
me that he and his family were moving to Plympton, Massachusetts in the spring of 2006,
because he was very frustrated with the town over the purchase of his dairy. Mr. Griffin
stated that his intent was for the property to be used as open space with recreational
fields for the children of Abington. Mr. Griffin stated that his anger with the town
increased when he learned that the Council on Aging won use of a portion of the property
for an elder center. He stated that he could not believe that the town would consider an
elder center proposal that would leave him looking out of his back window onto a parking
lot instead of his family farm. Not only did Mr. Griffin make clear what his original intent of
the use of his farm was to be as grantor to the town, he confirmed that intent by his
expression of the betrayal he felt towards certain town officials and citizens who were
considering other, non-open space uses for his farm.

Those seeking to build upon the Griffin’s Dairy property will point to the deed’s use of the
words “public purpose”. Preservation of open space is a judicially-recognized “public
purpose”. Board of Selectman of Hanson v. Melody Lindsay, 444 Mass. 502, 829 N.E.2d
1105 (2005). I will concede that other things, including the building of schools, may be a
“public purpose” as well, but the language of the deed by which the town took title, taken
together with the town meeting vote, statutory authority and grantors’ intent, limits the
“public purpose” on this property to the preservation of open space and recreational
uses. When so limited, a broad, open-ended definition of “public purpose” that would
allow anything to be done is simply incorrect.

A very telling event took place on November 27, 2006 during an open meeting of the
Middle School Site Selection Committee at the Abington High School. A close examination
of the deed language and the PowerPoint presentation of the Committee showed that the
Committee added a comma in the key portion of the conveyance language in the deed.
The language in the authorizing warrant article, the deed and even the Site Selection
Committee’s written report reads: “public purpose including open space and recreation.”
The Committee’s presentation inserted a comma after “public purpose”. I will not engage
in a lengthy grammatical discussion here, but the attempted insertion suggests to me that
the Middle School Site Selection Committee knows the deed language is limiting, and it is
hoping to argue that open space and recreational uses are just an optional “public
purpose” for this property. This position grasps at straws and stretches the already
pained credibility of a Committee that finds that a site in the center of town near the high
school apparently suitable for a large box store is not suitable for a middle school. To me,
and to other readers with perhaps a better understanding of the use and non-use of
commas than I, the language of the deed clearly sets out open space and recreational
use as the defined public purpose attached to the purchase of this property.

      I know that some have made the additional argument that a portion of Griffin’s Dairy
could be used leaving the rest as open space. Not only is this position defeated by the
overall expressed intent for the entire Griffin’s Dairy parcel, but any building or other non-
open space use introduces issues of possible trespass onto whatever open space is
preserved. An overbearing non-open space use will have the natural tendency to
overwhelm that open space use. As a former auxiliary police officer for the Town of
Abington, I know that public buildings, especially schools, are proactively patrolled and
are considered critical sites that require special attention from law enforcement.   This
means that people will be removed from the property and subject to search while on the
property. In addition, while school is in session, children and teachers will be alarmed by
anyone who would attempt to use the open space. This means that whether or not you
were on the school portion, one could be subject to trespass and arrest. The collective
impact of the security naturally attendant to a school site will be to ultimately defeat the
intent that open space be used and enjoyed. Free and open access will be frustrated by
the contrary and conflicting use of a school, that unfortunately in our times, must be a
bastion of security.

The choice, no, the mandate, to preserve Griffin’s Dairy is clearly laid out in the law and in
the intent of the townspeople. Your predecessors clearly designated the Griffin’s Dairy
Committee as the sole body to determine appropriate use for the dairy property. I thus
suggest you are bound to recognize the Griffin’s Dairy Committee recommendations. This
will not only be the correct and lawful thing to do, but it will also show the townspeople that
you respect their opinion and when they volunteer to work on a committee such as the
Griffin’s Dairy Committee, you will follow the recommendations presented.

Respectfully,

Sean J. Reynolds
19 Charles Street
Abington MA 02351