Group seeks voter input on land

A group of 20 citizens recently petitioned the Board of Selectmen to put a nonbinding referendum on the ballot of the April town election, asking whether the town should explore potential development on the heavily wooded property at routes 3 and 128.

Selectmen rejected the request by a 3-2 vote on Nov. 9. But Bob Roberto, a spokesman for the group, said he expects residents will be mounting a larger petition drive to get the referendum placed on the ballot.

“It’s going to be my strong recommendation to the other coalition members that we proceed with gathering the required number of signatures,’’ said Roberto.

To earn a spot on the April ballot, they would need to file a petition with the signatures of 10 percent of the town’s registered voters, or roughly 1,600 names, by Feb. 26.

Burlington acquired the parcel through eminent domain in 1985. It is known as the landlocked forest because it is cut off from the rest of Burlington by Route 3, and can be reached only through pedestrian access points in Bedford and Lexington.

Over the years, there has been recurrent debate in Burlington over potential uses of the land, with some urging that it be kept as open space and others calling for portions to be used for commercial and recreational purposes.

Last year, Patriot Partners, a development group that holds an option on the land that expires in May, proposed a plan to develop portions of the site for senior housing and a life-sciences biotechnology and office campus, and set aside the remainder as community-accessible open space.

In the spring of 2008, Town Meeting created a committee to explore the developer’s plan. But last fall, following the recommendations of the committee, Town Meeting voted against considering the plan further.

Last week, Roberto said he thinks Burlington should consider its development as a way to generate much-needed tax revenues and other benefits.

“The town owes it to the residents to give it that consideration,’’ said Roberto, a former selectman. “They’re the ones that footed the bill upwards of 20 years for that property.

“It’s a nonbinding referendum; it doesn’t obligate the town to take any action. It would give town officials a sense of what the voters’ sentiments are.’’

The proposed question asks voters whether they would support selling a portion of the parcel “for the potential development of a senior housing community and other potential commercial use . . . provided that community-accessible public open space and vehicular access is provided for . . . and that a portion of the land will remain available to the town for recreational purposes.’’

Selectmen Walter Zenkin voted against placing the question on next spring’s ballot.

“This is the last piece of large open-space property we have and it’s extremely important to the town of Burlington,’’ he said. “I don’t feel it’s necessary to sell it at this time. The landlocked parcel has survived three recessions and it will survive this one.’’

Martha Simon, president of the Friends of the Landlocked Forest, believes the board was right in its vote.

“Nobody is against people having a say,’’ Simon said, but the town should not hold a referendum based on the wishes of “a very small group.’’

“It’s really just a vague replay of the Patriot Partners proposal,’’ said Simon, whose group supports keeping the land undeveloped.

Selectwoman Sonia Rollins voted in support of holding the referendum.

“I think voters have a right to weigh in one way or another,’’ she said.

Rollins said she favors some development on the parcel as a way to pay for opening up access to the site.

Town Meeting member Tom Killilea, among residents who signed the petition, said gaining access to the site is also his motivation for favoring some development of the land. He said the town could build much-needed recreational facilities there.

But Larry Cohen, chairman of the town’s Conservation Commission and a proponent of keeping the parcel undeveloped, noted that one of the original reasons for taking the land by eminent domain was to protect the town’s nearby drinking-water wells. He said that before voters are asked to weigh in on the issue, development proponents need to show that the water protection is no longer needed.

Cohen also is concerned that developing the parcel could worsen flooding in the area along the well field, and he questioned allowing more commercial development when the town has a significant amount of permitted office space that remains unbuilt due to lack of demand.

Robert Buckley, a lawyer representing Patriot Partners, said the developer is not involved in the referendum effort, but added: “I honestly don’t see why people would be against putting this out to the population for a vote. It’s their property.’’

Buckley said Patriot Partners hopes to engage in further discussions with the town about carrying out a project on the site, and also is interested in negotiating an agreement to extend its option.

The right to buy and develop the site was issued as part of town eminent domain proceedings; Patriot Partners later acquired assets of the land’s former owners, P.C. Burlington Inc., including the option, according to its website promoting the project, www.landlockedparcelburlington.com.