To the Editor:
Here is my statement I read at the Annual Town Meeting on Monday, April 29, 2024. It is an abbreviated version of the same information I shared with the Board of Selectmen at their meeting on February 15, 2024.
I am Dori Wollen of 8 Cedar Hill Lane. I am also the Chair of the Conservation Commission although I am not speaking for the Commission. In my prior life at IBM I was a leasing specialist and from that experience, I can tell you that this proposed lease does NOT protect the Town, to the contrary. This is our only real estate lease, and we are not in the business of leasing real estate and therefore must be doubly careful of the terms and conditions of this proposed deal.
Some of the specifics: The first section of the proposed lease fails to describe the exact area that will be leased to the New England Prayer Center (NEPC). It refers to 29.6 acres where 18. 7 acres belong to Aspetuck Land Trust and has nothing to do with the proposed lease. Are we leasing the entire balance of the 10.9 acres? Or only three or four or none? What are the coordinates and the boundaries of the leased area? Will the Blazes be restricted only to their house, without even being able to plant flowers around their residence? I assume they would like to know their boundaries.
Also, why does the map refer to “proposed Parcel A” and “proposed Parcel B?” There is nothing proposed here except the lease. Parcel B is owned by Aspetuck Land Trust and Parcel A is owned by the Town which by the way is subject of a Conservation Easement. This same paragraph goes into great details about the entire 29.6 acres and its history and conveniently omits any reference to the Conservation Easement/Open Space. Why?
Next, there is a reference to the South Barn (para 1a and para 3 in its entirety), which, according to the map is on the Aspetuck Land Trust property and therefore all reference to it should be deleted. Also, the map was last updated on December 10, 2021, before the 18.6 acre sale to the Aspetuck Land Trust. Is this proposed lease based on a three year old map? Or was it updated without the Engineers/Architects approval?
There are a lot of inconsistencies in this lease, which indicate no or limited fact checking and/or proofreading. Another one hits you very quickly — Para 5, 10(n) and 18(a): Para 5 states that the lease will automatically expire when the Blazes attempt to assign or sublet the lease. Para 10(n) states that NEPC shall not assign the lease. Para 18(a) states that the lease may be enforced against NEPC’s successors. How is that work if the lease cannot be assigned, or if it is assigned, it triggers early termination??
There are many more problems with the language and it would take me more than three minutes to list them all. Accordingly, I urge you to vote against this lease in its present form. Thank you.
Dori Wollen
Easton
.
