Garland residents say ‘no’ twice to east-west corridor

By Mike Lange
Staff Writer

    GARLAND — Residents of Garland enacted a 180-day moratorium on any development related to the proposed east-west corridor at a special town meeting on July 10.
    In a non-binding straw vote, they also rejected having any portion of the limited-access highway built in their community.

    The moratorium was approved 88-5 and the straw vote asking if townspeople should allow the project was rejected 85-4.
    Many residents registered to vote for the first time this year, and every seat in the town’s Grange Hall was filled for the one-hour session.
    After Jack Weinstein was elected moderator, First Selectman George Corey read the article on the moratorium, which was similar to measures passed in Monson, Sangerville and Charleston earlier this year.
    The article cites the possibility that Garland would be on the route of the proposed 220-mile corridor which would include “private paved highways, a pipeline and high tension transmission lines … and has not been adequately provided for in the Town’s current Land Use Ordinance.”
    The article also said that “continued development of such Corridors pursuant to the continued Land Use Ordinance could pose serious threats to public health, safety and welfare to the residents of Garland through the over-development of parts of town with such corridors without adequate provisions for issues of safety, and land-use compatibility.”
    Passage of the moratorium halts “all proceedings, applications and petitions not pending as of July 10, 2013, and on any new construction or use, requiring approval under the terms of the Town’s zoning and land use ordinances and regulations for town until the effective date of the necessary amendments to the zoning and land use ordinances and regulations or until Jan. 5, 2014.”
    After the motion to accept the article was made and seconded, no one spoke for or against the measure, so the written ballots were quickly cast and counted.
    On the straw vote, one resident did ask if the results could stand up to a court challenge. Corey said that while it may not have any legal bearing, “(Cianbro CEO) Peter Vigue has said that he understands that ‘no means no.’ Once we get the results of this vote, we’ll bring them directly to his office and hope we have some media with us. We’ll see if he’s a man of his word.”
    Another question came up about legal ramifications of the moratorium, but Planning Board member Susan Watson said that they are already working on the issue. “We’re going to find out the availability of (legal) counsel and the fees. We’ve also looked at other communities with similar ordinances and we’ll share their concerns.”
    Third Selectman Matt Newman added that the 180-day length of the moratorium “is flexible. We can extend it as long as the threat that prompted the moratorium is still present. And we don’t have to hold another town meeting to do it.”
    There was a third article originally slated to be on the warrant about adjusting the municipal budget due to a decrease in state revenue sharing. But selectmen said that the article wasn’t necessary, since voters routinely authorize the board at the annual town meeting to make necessary changes in the budget. Corey said that the decrease in revenue sharing would only be “around $7,000 or $8,000. We may have to cut some services about 3 percent, so it won’t have much of an effect on townspeople.”
    But Corey also cautioned voters that next year could be a tough one for taxpayers. “We don’t spend money foolishly. But the state is forcing our hand. We may have to raise taxes next year.”