Fight over future of property not over

A fight about open space in Wrentham that spilled over into local elections might still have some spark left in it.

Residents living near the Holmes property have filed a citizens' petition to gain a spot on the warrant for Town Meeting, where they will ask voters to consider approving money to buy the 173-acre property or take it by eminent domain.

The site has garnered much attention in the past few months because the town had a right to buy it due to its enrollment in a state land-conservation program that gave the owner a property tax break.

But the Board of Selectmen took a controversial vote in February to drop litigation the town had brought to pursue its buying rights, a move that cleared the way for housing developers who had already made an offer on the land for about $1.9 million.

Some residents aren't ready to accept that decision. Debbie Riley, who lives on Blackberry Hill Road in West Wrentham, next to the property, filed the petition.

''This never should have happened," Riley said. ''I think that's what drives me. The town of Wrentham had an unbelievable opportunity to preserve 173 acres of land for open space and our selectmen blew it."

She said she wasn't sure if it would come up at the April 26 Town Meeting or if proponents would put it off until June, when financial matters are traditionally taken up.

''We're just trying to figure out legally if there's anything we can do to possibly change the direction of this development," Riley said.

In the meantime, a trio of Wrentham developers are proceeding with plans to build 60 houses and leave 100 to 130 acres as open space. Including small portions in Bellingham and Franklin, the property totals 212 acres.

''We're going forward as planned," said Kathleen Kudirka, one of the developers, adding that they expect to go before the Planning Board soon.

The developers met with residents in March, she said, and felt like they heard more approval than resistance to the development plan, which is also slated to include the construction of a water main from Blackberry Hill Road to the Bellingham line.

''We did meet with quite a few of the residents to try to calm them down, let them know what we are doing," Kudirka said. ''They were upset and we wanted to let them know we were on their side."

Luke Street resident Kate Earls, who signed her name to the citizens' petition, lives across from what would be the entrance to the proposed subdivision. She said preventing the 60 houses is a ''long shot," but she hopes the article shows town officials how much opposition there is to developing the Holmes property.

''It's devastating on a personal level to many people, but it's also devastating ecologically," she said.

Earls is looking ahead in the hopes of preventing a repeat scenario somewhere else and is proposing that the town establish its own land trust to raise money for preservation.

The selectmen's vote to withdraw litigation on the Holmes property became a big issue in the recent election campaign. Charles Farling, a longtime selectman, was the only board member up for reelection who voted to stop the lawsuit. He lost by a huge margin.

Selectman Steve Langley, who voted with Farling because, he said, he thought the developers were offering the best deal, said he doesn't think the town can afford to buy the Holmes property.

''If we could protect or purchase all the open space in town, that would definitely be a good thing," Langley said. ''The potential problem with this article is we don't have the money."

Originally, the town was not planning to purchase the land outright but instead preserve most of the property through conservation groups.

It's not clear that voters will be at all interested in an eminent domain taking. According to town attorney George Hall, generally any intended public purpose -- including open space preservation -- can be a valid excuse for a municipality to take property.

Of course, that doesn't mean the town won't be sued by the landowners, which most recently were listed as Holmes Realty Trust and RIOV Realty Trust.

Indeed, Wrentham is just now going to trial over a disputed land-taking. Owners of the DiCarlo property filed suit against the town in December 2001, arguing that the $1.5 million they received from the town for the approximately 200 acres taken for water wells and conservation purposes was inadequate.

That lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial May 10, according to Mark Bourbeau, the attorney representing the town in the case. If Wrentham loses, the town would owe about $5.5 million including interest, he said.

Riley said she doesn't want to see a repeat of anything like that, but she wants Town Meeting to consider as many options as possible.

''We actually abut the open-space part of this development, but it's not just about me," she said. ''This is about the town of Wrentham. This is about families that are devastated by this decision."

Lisa Kocian can be reached at 508-820-4231 or lkocian@globe.com.