Clarification on Rails to Trails

I would like to to address concerns over the content of the August Norfolk Now article about the formation of the Rails to Trails committee, and more specifically, the map in the article.

At my suggestion, this map was acquired from the Norfolk Historical Society by the author, Ruth Melville. It shows the original route of the railroad and the historical significance of the rail through town. It is, by no means, the exact location of the entire potential rail trail. Some sections of old rail line are not suitable for a trail for a variety of reasons (private ownership, wetlands, development). We hope to find suitable alternative locations for the trail to avoid these areas, such as land trust property, state property, roadside bike lanes and private land whose owners want to take part.

In no way would eminent domain or any other heavy-handed method be used by this all-volunteer committee to gain access through private land. That would not be respectful or legal. Any cooperation from owners of the old rail bed would be strictly voluntary.

Our first meeting was well attended and very enthusiastic, with a lot of ideas being hashed about. The second meeting provided an opportunity for the committee to hear the concerns of rail bed owners and neighbors. We also made it clear that trespassing on private property, without permission, is not allowed as we move forward with what I see as a tremendous opportunity for Norfolk. All are welcome to attend our next meeting on Thursday, September 10, at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.

—David Beers

Turbine Setbacks

In your story about wind turbines (August 2015), you overstate the setbacks required by state regulations. While a wind farm of more than 65 megawatts must preserve a boundary of 2.5 times the wind turbine height, projects producing less energy require a setback of 1.5 times the height. The project in Colebrook consists of two 2.85-megawatt turbines but is limited to producing 5 megawatts. Realistically, 1.5 times the height is the setback that will apply to future wind turbine projects in the state, given the unlikelihood of large onshore wind farms of 20 or more turbines.

—Joyce Hemingson

President, FairWindCT

Regionalization Plan Flawed

The regionalization plan presented by the study commission should be voted down. It is deeply flawed and there is a false sense of urgency pushing it forward.

Finances: The vast majority of projected savings are dependent on cutting teachers after a dramatic decrease in students. If student population stays constant, these savings will not be realized. To make this arrangement palatable to Colebrook, this regionalization plan surrenders most of Norfolk’s potential savings and requires no capital contribution. Projected savings do not automatically translate into smaller tax bills. There is no indication that tax dollars will not simply be redirected.

Education: Botelle will lose important spaces—music room, science room, tutoring spaces, computer room—compromising learning. Plan proponents tout educational benefits. However, those benefits—an expanded day, pre-K and digital learning—are already in place at Botelle. It is the responsibility of a school to educate children and education is optimal when class sizes are smaller. Experts recommend 12–18 students/class. Botelle’s average class size is 15. Education should not be compromised to expand social options. There are many opportunities for our children to socialize with neighboring towns’ children—sports, scouts, camps, library programs, etc.

Governance: The proposed plan contains only a two-page “outline” of a lease for the school building (also used as our emergency shelter and community center). An incomplete lease leaves Norfolk exposed to future problems or potential lawsuits. A complete lease should be written and distributed to voters before such an important vote. The high quorum and crossover requirements will likely impede decision making by a regional board of education. Regionalization is permanent legal commitment that is extremely difficult and expensive to change.

Facilities/transportation: It is inappropriate to lease, for $1/year, a $6 million building that Norfolk has painstakingly maintained. Colebrook town planners have not invested well in their school. It is not prudent to put Norfolk’s investment in Botelle at similar risk. Very long bus rides are inevitable given the mileage covered and our climate. Practice runs that squeak under one hour in perfect weather and without students are not realistic.

There are better solutions. Vote no on Tuesday, September 22.

—Ann DeCerbo