Shutesbury Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes May 15, 2007 Members present: Chairman Rebecca Torres, Debra Pichanick and Ralph Armstrong. Also Present: Town Administrator David C. Dann and Leslie Bracebridge, recording. Meeting opened at 7:02 P.M. Appointments Police Chief Harding: * Current RAD class ending, new class starts in the fall. * Officers will qualify at firing range and take boater safety course. * No noise issues with May Day celebration on Town Common. Discussion: o More participants and spectators this year than last. Due to advertising in the newspaper? o Traffic, parking, children, "rubber-necking" are safety issues. o Should future similar events require a permit? o Should Town Counsel be consulted to avoid liability issues? o At what point does a cooking fire become a bonfire? At 7:30 PM Becky opened a meeting of land use committees and boards. Those present included: Recreation and Open Space Committee Chairman Liz Lacy and member Janice Stone, Conservation Commission members Kevin Weir and Randy Stone, Planning Board Chairman Deacon Bonnar, member Joanne Sunshower and member-elect Linda Rotondi, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Charles J. DiMare and member Russ Greco, Board of Health Chairman William "Bill" Elliott, and Town Center Committee Chair Julie Taylor by speaker phone. Also present: Finance Committee member Al Springer, Gate and Dam Keeper Howard Kinder, citizens Sanford Lewis, Hugh Harwell, Melissa Makepeace O’Neil, Stephen Puffer, Sharon Raymond, Michael Baines, Aron Goldman, Susan Essig and citizen and attorney representing W.D. Cowls Michael Pill and forester representing W.D. Cowls Inc. and Pelham resident Shane Bajnoci. Planning Board member Joanne Sunshower was invited to speak first, having originated a petition for Annual Town Meeting. (The wording of the petition, not read at this meeting, is attached to the end of these minutes for reference.) Joanne listed 4 objectives generating discussion: 1. To determine the feasibility of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) for the Town. * Town voted CPA down 6 or 7 years ago. * Shutesbury officials attended a CPA presentation last summer. * The Town Administrator has the steps to be taken to approve it. * Selectmen need input from land use boards and residents. * CPA funds could have been put toward dam repairs had Shutesbury been a participant. * A CPA Committee oversees the program. * Taxes are tough enough for some people in Shutesbury. There’s not enough money for projects already on the docket. * Billing was a factor in the failed first vote; now there is inexpensive, easy, collector software. * 10% of funds are set aside for affordable housing, 10% for open space and 10% for historic preservation. The remaining 70% are allocated in any way by vote of Town Meeting, and as recommended by the CPA Committee. * Affordable housing could be partnered with efforts of the Franklin Regional Housing Authority. Shutesbury needs affordable housing to meet state expectations. * One option would tax only after the first $100,000 of a home’s value. * Surcharge percentage and exemptions are voted at town meeting. * Leverett sets aside on average $30,000 per year before a state match. * A fall power point presentation of CPA could lead to a 2008 town meeting vote. * First decide what things the town might want to do with the funds? There’s a constant flow of needs over time such as the Lake Wyola Lodge and the church. CPA would add to the "toolbox." * Selectmen could disseminate information from the previous CPA presentation to committees that could then provide feedback to Selectmen. * Is there an independent sampling of people who have more of a stake in the program than state sponsored presenters? * Only one town has opted to get out of the CPA. * Broaden the spectrum of ways to augment funds: o Grants with a guaranteed match amount. o Prior to the creation of CPA, Cape Cod instituted a 2% tax on property transfers. The CPA was designed in response to that. 2. Gather information on planning and land protection options and resources that could be available in a variety of formats for individual landowners. * No one single thing protects land. The Master Plan is one tool, zoning, there is a need to keep other methods as part of the discussion. * Board of Health Chairman Bill Elliott: The Master Plan had many objectives besides zoning; he urges re-visiting the entire Master Plan. * Susan Essig: There’s community interest in preserving undeveloped land. Zoning is one tool. Helpful non-regulatory tools include Franklin Land Trust Kestrel and Mount Grace Land Trust, and conservation restrictions, whereby landowners voluntarily agree to sign a deed with what areas will be preserved. Announced a free one-day workshop. Talking about a tool to protect forest conservation areas in the context of knowing that large tracts of privately owned land will be most affected by the zoning proposal. * Hugh Harwell: Prioritize: Identify a specific objective, look at the tools, and then a committee can work out terms such as usage rights, financing and on-going maintenance of a conservation restriction with the land owner. * Liz: Get a number of people from different viewpoints to work through the different options. * Becky: Would like the Recreation and Open Space Committee to identify the tracts of land the town should be looking at. How do we utilize the Open Space Plan? * Michael Pill: MGL Ch 184 S 31 and 32 (Not distributed at the meeting; is attached to the end of these minutes for reference.) describes the mechanism developed to address conservation restrictions. DEP has a Conservation Restriction handbook available on the Internet. Complications: Funding. Can be used in combination with tax benefits. Mt Grace Land Trust in Warwick has an excellent track record of "scrounging money and persuading landowners that tax benefits are useful to them." 3. To identify the town’s most critical natural resources, aquifers, potential wellhead, forests, wildlife habitat, etc. to be protected. * Develop a portion of land and preserve the rest. The key issue is the money. * Liz Lacy and Janice Stone: Have worked as Co-Chairs of the Recreation & Open Space Committee. Janice and Liz work professionally with land trust organizations. Conservation restrictions can work very well. There is a need to look at this in a thoughtful cohesive way, not by what each committee does. * Becky: Not everyone is aware of what others have done before them. The Master Plan is a vital document. * Bill: In addition to land trusts there are also state agencies: The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs preserved the Banfield property and owners Cynthia and Kevin Banfield-Weir have done an exemplary job managing the property. * Janice Stone: The Recreation and Open Space Committee has gotten behind. The Open Space Plan expired in 2005. We’re not trying to preserve the whole town; rather to identify certain properties and identify ways to protect them. The Recreation and Open Space Committee needs help: Writers for rewriting the Open Space Plan and for thinking about specifics for Shutesbury’s interests. * Leslie: Establish a regular meeting time and make an invitation/request for assistance announcement in the newsletter and on the Website? * Becky: Selectmen will help rejuvenate the Recreation and Open Space Committee. * Al Springer: It’s not going to get done in a day. Invite a number of people with different perspectives. * Joanne: Her intention in putting together the petition was to create an atmosphere and relationships where all people work together on the same problem. She wants the town to get to a level of inclusiveness. Why should the landowners be the only ones to sacrifice? Adopting the CPA would be everyone pitching in. 4. To expand and increase our knowledge and understanding of tools for resource protection and growth management: What are the roles and options for local zoning, easements, and restriction programs? * Gather information for individual land owners. The Recreation and Open Space Committee can put together a list of resources. * Liz: In many towns the Planning Board updates the Open Space Plan. It is not necessarily a task of the Recreation and Open Space Committee. She is hoping the plan will represent a broader cross-section of people representing more than the open space committee. An Open space Plan Committee is needed to redo the Open Space plan. Immediate Volunteers included: Sue Essig, Hugh Harwell and Joanne Sunshower. * Liz: The Open Space Plan needs an action plan. Each board is supposed to look at it and take on their own individual charges. * Bill: There are mechanisms to develop the plan without meetings. He declines participation in any more meetings but offers to review the plan with and from the Board of Health perspective and more broadly. * Sue Essig: Given the fact that a number of large land-owners have a large stake in this, she hates to see the committee slanted in one direction. She hopes someone with land in the family for generations would step up; it would be valuable. * Shane Bajnoci: Identifies himself as a Pelham resident and Cowl’s chief Forester. He has looked at Pelham’s efforts with Belchertown. They are trying to bring all parties to the table. * Michael Pill: Cinda Jones could not attend this meeting as she had to be out of town but she definitely wants to be involved. * Julie Taylor: Private property owners have a great concern about publishing and promoting trails on private land. They run into liability issues. Julie cautions the Open Space Plan Committee to be careful about recommending access to trails on private lands. Make sure the owners are on-board. Julie promotes listing options for what to do with land, so that private property owners can review options on their own, and if they prefer, so they won’t have to be approached by individuals. * Liz: Janice and Liz thought about a "trails summit" at one point, realized that they can’t go there, and tabled the whole thing. Julie’s point is well-taken. They can’t publish private trails and won’t do it. Just as the state natural heritage map has a big bubble around endangered species areas, it has been the Recreation and Open Space Committee’s policy not to publish private trails. They respect that. * Julie: Taking the concept one step further, some public trails arrive at private property. Consider making trail information available only for public trails self-contained on public land. * A forum is needed beyond the Planning Board to discuss these tools of restrictions and easements. * Janice: FRCOG could sponsor something like this and other county towns could benefit from this as well. Joanne offered to take on requesting this of FRCOG. * Michael Pill: On April 24 Cinda Jones brought people together for a resource protection forum. Michael invited Shane to describe the event: * Shane: Mark Bobrowski made a presentation. The Makepeace cranberry growers company served as a model of clustering large land parcels in such a way as to make the cranberry landowners happy while preserving 70% of the land. * Michael: You already have the largest property owner in Shutesbury working on land preservation. * Hugh: The Planning Board may lead but it does not have the sole responsibility for resource protection. Zoning is one tool. We need to understand what the most constructive mechanisms are for resource protection. It’s a broad public issue. Hugh supports the general process of wide dissemination of information and collaboration as we move along. * Liz: Agrees that resource protection is broader than zoning. There’s been a lot of work and effort put into the zoning revisions. Another effort is needed for people with diverging issues. People with differing viewpoints need to sit down and work together. Becky: Asked if it would be helpful if the Selectmen set up topic meetings. * The meetings should be run by a non-paid professional. If someone is paid to do it they have a vested interest, and/or are emotionally involved. * Becky: The Selectmen are not going to create any new committees tonight. * Al Springer: Plymouth bought land for $4 million, put in a cemetery, and put out to bid for a senior housing project which brought in $6 million. Thus, Plymouth made $2 million to put toward the purchase of more land. * Becky: Senior housing would be beneficial to Shutesbury. She thanked everyone for coming out tonight and closed the forum. Topics 1. A quarterly Select Board review with projected timelines was postponed. 2. Selectmen unanimously approved a connect CTY user list to include the Fire Chief and Emergency Management Director, all members of the Board of Selectmen, the Police Chief, Town Administrator, Town Clerk, Administrative Secretary, a School Representative, and the Board of Health Chairman. 3. Discussion of Lot M-30 was postponed. 4. See Select Board Action Item #5 below. Select Board Action Items 1. No minutes were approved. 2. Signed warrants: vendor total - $112,197.85 and payroll total: $79,007.84. 3. Unanimously voted to sign a waiver of the right of first refusal of "Lot 2," former Barr Ashcraft property on Leonard Road, Franklin County Registry of Deeds reference Book 5196, Page 304, and Lien Reference Book 2512, Page 238 as allowed under Section 8 of Chapter 61. Both the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board declined to recommend that the town purchase the property. 4. Becky and Ralph voted to sign a contract with New England Environmental, Inc. for permitting work to be done at the Lake Wyola Dam in the amount of $7,052.50, Debra did not vote due to a potential conflict of interest that has been identified by the Massachusetts Ethics Commission because she is an abutter to the dam. 5. Selectmen unanimously voted to sign a letter to the Wendell Conservation Commission notifying them that Dam Keeper Howard Kinder and Highway Superintendent Timothy Hunting would be authorized to remove the debris from the Truesdale beaver dam with one week’s notice to the Wendell Conservation Commission. 6. Selectmen unanimously voted to sign an application for partial reimbursement of approximately $15,000 to $16,000 for costs incurred during removal of the underground fuel storage tanks and replacement with above ground tanks at the Highway Garage. 7. Unanimously voted that Shutesbury sign a contract with the Franklin Regional Council of Governments for fuel oil of various grades and prices as listed: Diesel – Firm price with Country Oil at $2.7475/gal and $.08 more for winter blend, Gasoline – Firm price with A.R. Sandri at $3.0690/gallon 8. Unanimously voted to appoint Leslie Bracebridge as Ralph Armstrong’s alternate on the Department of Conservation and Recreation Lake Wyola and Wendell State Parks Citizens Advisory Committee. 9. Selectmen signed a certificate to be presented to the oldest citizen of Shutesbury and the Selectmen were invited to join the ceremony at a May 22 noon time senior luncheon. New Topics Becky reported the May 2 Board of Health (BOH) meeting recognized that the Planning Board commissioned town center hydrogeology report was a planning document not a regulatory document. The Board of Health is now considering nitrates in soil and the use of percolation test results from all areas of town to study soil permeability for the purpose of understanding nitrate concentrations. The Board has a $4,000 grant and is working with a state soils testing instructor to pursue this research. The Board of Health is now considering a mandatory 5 to 6 year rolling septic system testing program to be paid for by the individual homeowner. More discussion will follow at the next BOH meeting. A new regulation of Chapter 70 Section 41 states that all 4 towns have to pass the regional school budget when they diverge from the Chapter 70 assessment formula. Shutesbury will need to pay an additional $14,000 for debt service for regional high school renovations borrowing. This will require a special town meeting by fall. Walk-Ins Gate and Dam Keeper Howard Kinder commented on channels of communication leading up to town meeting. He was surprised by an amendment concerning the Lake Wyola water level that would be of concern to him. He asked that officials of decision making bodies responsible for different aspects of town government be given advance notice when changes are going to be suggested. Becky explained that while Selectmen cannot control the actions of town meeting, they will promote respectful sharing of information. The website could summarize how town committees fit together in local government and this could be brought up at an all boards meeting also. Selectmen appreciate hardworking volunteers. Julie Taylor added: Comments made by individuals of committees should not be considered as representative of the respective committee’s opinion unless the individuals have been assigned by the committee to represent it. She asked that committee members verify when they speak that they are only voicing their own ideas and not those of the committee. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Bracebridge Administrative Secretary Wording of the petition presented to the April 17 Select Board meeting resulting in the land committees forum of this May 15 meeting: "To see if the Town of Shutesbury will vote to establish an ad hoc committee made up of town residents and answerable to the Planning Board, to research and recommend methods through which the town can pursue preservation and protection of its critical natural resources, e.g. aquifers, potential wellheads, wetlands, forests & wildlife habitat. This would include, but not be limited to gathering information on conservation restriction options and the Community Preservation Act." PART II. REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS TITLE I. TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY CHAPTER 184. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO REAL PROPERTY Chapter 184: Section 31. Restrictions, defined Section 31. A conservation restriction means a right, either in perpetuity or for a specified number of years, whether or not stated in the form of a restriction, easement, covenant or condition, in any deed, will or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land or in any order of taking, appropriate to retaining land or water areas predominantly in their natural, scenic or open condition or in agricultural, farming or forest use, to permit public recreational use, or to forbid or limit any or all (a) construction or placing of buildings, roads, signs, billboards or other advertising, utilities or other structures on or above the ground, (b) dumping or placing of soil or other substance or material as landfill, or dumping or placing of trash, waste or unsightly or offensive materials, (c) removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, (d) excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other mineral substance in such manner as to affect the surface, (e) surface use except for agricultural, farming, forest or outdoor recreational purposes or purposes permitting the land or water area to remain predominantly in its natural condition, (f) activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or soil conservation, or (g) other acts or uses detrimental to such retention of land or water areas. A preservation restriction means a right, whether or not stated in the form of a restriction, easement, covenant or condition, in any deed, will or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land or in any order of taking, appropriate to preservation of a structure or site historically significant for its architecture, archeology or associations, to forbid or limit any or all (a) alterations in exterior or interior features of the structure, (b) changes in appearance or condition of the site, (c) uses not historically appropriate, (d) field investigation, as defined in section twenty-six A of chapter nine, without a permit as provided by section twenty-seven C of said chapter, or (e) other acts or uses detrimental to appropriate preservation of the structure or site. An agricultural preservation restriction means a right, whether or not stated in the form of a restriction, easement, covenant or condition, in any deed, will or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land appropriate to retaining land or water areas predominately in their agricultural farming or forest use, to forbid or limit any or all (a) construction or placing of buildings except for those used for agricultural purposes or for dwellings used for family living by the land owner, his immediate family or employees; (b) excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other mineral substance in such a manner as to adversely affect the land’s overall future agricultural potential; and (c) other acts or uses detrimental to such retention of the land for agricultural use. Such agricultural preservation restrictions shall be in perpetuity except as released under the provisions of section thirty-two. All other customary rights and privileges of ownership shall be retained by the owner including the right to privacy and to carry out all regular farming practices. A watershed preservation restriction means a right, whether or not stated in the form of a restriction, easement, covenant or condition, in any deed, will or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land appropriate to retaining land predominantly in such condition to protect the water supply or potential water supply of the commonwealth, to forbid or limit any or all (a) construction or placing of buildings; (b) excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other mineral substance except as needed to maintain the land and (c) other acts or uses detrimental to such watershed. Such watershed preservation restrictions shall be in perpetuity except as released under the provisions of section thirty-two. All other customary rights and privileges of ownership shall be retained by the owner, including the right to privacy. An affordable housing restriction means a right, either in perpetuity or for a specified number of years, whether or not stated in the form of a restriction, easement, covenant or condition in any deed, mortgage, will, agreement, or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land appropriate to (a) limiting the use of all or part of the land to occupancy by persons, or families of low or moderate income in either rental housing or other housing or (b) restricting the resale price of all or part of the property in order to assure its affordability by future low and moderate income purchasers or (c) in any way limiting or restricting the use or enjoyment of all or any portion of the land for the purpose of encouraging or assuring creation or retention of rental and other housing for occupancy by low and moderate income persons and families. Without in any way limiting the scope of the foregoing definition, any restriction, easement, covenant or condition placed in any deed, mortgage, will, agreement or other instrument pursuant to the requirements of the Rental Housing Development Action Loan program or the Housing Innovations Fund program established pursuant to section three of chapter two hundred and twenty-six of the acts of nineteen hundred and eighty-seven or pursuant to the requirements of any program established by the Massachusetts housing partnership fund board established pursuant to chapter four hundred and five of the acts of nineteen hundred and eighty-five, including without limitation the Homeownership Opportunity Program, or pursuant to the requirements of sections twenty-five to twenty-seven, inclusive, of chapter twenty-three B, or pursuant to the requirements of any regulations or guidelines promulgated pursuant to any of the foregoing, shall be deemed to be an affordable housing restriction within the meaning of this paragraph. Chapter 184: Section 32. Effect, enforcement, acquisition, and release of restrictions Section 32. No conservation restriction, agricultural preservation or watershed preservation restriction as defined in section thirty-one, held by any governmental body or by a charitable corporation or trust whose purposes include conservation of land or water areas or of a particular such area, and no preservation restriction, as defined in said section thirty-one, held by any governmental body or by a charitable corporation or trust whose purposes include preservation of buildings or sites of historical significance or of a particular such building or site, and no affordable housing restriction as defined in said section thirty-one, held by any governmental body or by a charitable corporation or trust whose purposes include creating or retaining or assisting in the creation or retention of affordable rental or other housing for occupancy by persons or families of low or moderate income shall be unenforceable on account of lack of privacy of estate or contract or lack of benefit to particular land or on account of the benefit being assignable or being assigned to any other governmental body or to any charitable corporation or trust with like purposes, or on account of the governmental body the charitable corporation or trust having received the right to enforce the restriction by assignment, provided (a) in case of a restriction held by a city or town or a commission, authority or other instrumentality thereof it is approved by the secretary of environmental affairs if a conservation restriction, the commissioner of the metropolitan district commission if a watershed preservation restriction, the commissioner of food and agriculture if an agricultural preservation restriction, the Massachusetts historical commission if a preservation restriction, or the director of housing and community development if an affordable housing restriction, and (b) in case of a restriction held by a charitable corporation or trust it is approved by the mayor, or in cities having a city manager the city manager, and the city council of the city, or selectmen or town meeting of the town, in which the land is situated, and the secretary of environmental affairs if a conservation restriction, the commissioner of the metropolitan district commission if a watershed preservation restriction, the commissioner of food and agriculture if an agricultural preservation restriction, the Massachusetts historical commission if a preservation restriction, or the director of housing and community development if an affordable housing restriction. [ Second paragraph effective until August 2, 2006. For text effective August 2, 2006, see below.] Such conservation, preservation, agricultural preservation, watershed preservation and affordable housing restrictions are interests in land and may be acquired by any governmental body or such charitable corporation or trust which have power to acquire interest in the land, in the same manner as it may acquire other interests in land. Such a restriction may be enforced by injunction or other proceeding, and shall entitle representatives of the holder to enter the land in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times to assure compliance. Such a restriction may be released, in whole or in part, by the holder for such consideration, if any, as the holder may determine, in the same manner as the holder may dispose of land or other interests in land, but only after a public hearing upon reasonable public notice, by the governmental body holding the restriction or if held by a charitable corporation or trust, by the mayor, or in cities having a city manager the city manager, the city council of the city or the selectmen of the town, whose approval shall be required, and in case of a restriction requiring approval by the secretary of environmental affairs, the Massachusetts historical commission, the commissioner of the metropolitan district commission, the commissioner of food and agriculture, or the director of housing and community development, only with like approval of the release. [ Second paragraph as amended by 2006, 205, Sec. 13 effective August 2, 2006 applicable as provided by 2006, 205, Sec. 22. For text effective until August 2, 2006, see above.] Such conservation, preservation, agricultural preservation, watershed preservation and affordable housing restrictions are interests in land and may be acquired by any governmental body or such charitable corporation or trust which has power to acquire interest in the land, in the same manner as it may acquire other interests in land. The restriction may be enforced by injunction or other proceeding, and shall entitle representatives of the holder to enter the land in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times to assure compliance. If the court in any judicial enforcement proceeding, or the decision maker in any arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution enforcement proceeding, finds there has been a violation of the restriction or of any other restriction described in clause (c) of section 26 then, in addition to any other relief ordered, the petitioner bringing the action or proceeding may be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action proceeding. The restriction may be released, in whole or in part, by the holder for consideration, if any, as the holder may determine, in the same manner as the holder may dispose of land or other interests in land, but only after a public hearing upon reasonable public notice, by the governmental body holding the restriction or if held by a charitable corporation or trust, by the mayor, or in cities having a city manager the city manager, the city council of the city or the selectmen of the town, whose approval shall be required, and in case of a restriction requiring approval by the secretary of environmental affairs, the Massachusetts historical commission, the director of the division of water supply protection of the department of conservation and recreation, the commissioner of food and agriculture, or the director of housing and community development, only with like approval of the release.   No restriction that has been purchased with state funds or which has been granted in consideration of a loan or grant made with state funds shall be released unless it is repurchased by the land owner at its then current fair market value. Funds so received shall revert to the fund sources from which the original purchase, loan, or grant was made, or, lacking such source, shall be made available to acquire similar interests in other land. Agricultural preservation restrictions shall be released by the holder only if the land is no longer deemed suitable for agricultural or horticultural purposes or unless two-thirds of both branches of the general court, by a vote taken by yeas and nays, vote that the restrictions shall be released for the public good. Watershed preservation restrictions shall be released by the holder only if the land is deemed by the commissioner of the metropolitan district commission and the secretary of environmental affairs to no longer be of any importance to the water supply or potential water supply of the commonwealth or unless two-thirds of both branches of the general court, by a vote taken by yeas and nays, vote that the restrictions shall be released for the public good.   Approvals of restrictions and releases shall be evidenced by certificates of the secretary of environmental affairs or the chairman, clerk or secretary of the Massachusetts historical commission, or the commissioner of food and agriculture, or the director of housing and community development or the city council, or selectmen of the town, as applicable duly recorded or registered.   In determining whether the restriction or its continuance is in the public interest, the governmental body acquiring, releasing or approving shall take into consideration the public interest in such conservation, preservation, watershed preservation, agricultural preservation or affordable housing and any national, state, regional and local program in furtherance thereof, and also any public state, regional or local comprehensive land use or development plan affecting the land, and any known proposal by a governmental body for use of the land.   This section shall not be construed to imply that any restriction, easement, covenant or condition which does not have the benefit of this section shall, on account of any provisions hereof, be unenforceable. Nothing in this section or section thirty-one and section thirty-three shall diminish the powers granted by any general or special law to acquire by purchase, gift, eminent domain or otherwise to use land for public purposes.   Nothing in this section shall prohibit the department of telecommunications and energy from authorizing the taking of easements for the purpose of utility services provided that (a) said department shall require the minimum practicable interference with farming operations with respect to width of easement, pole locations and other pertinent matters, (b) the applicant has received all necessary licenses, permits, approvals and other authorizations from the appropriate state agencies, (c) the applicant shall compensate the owner of the property in the same manner and the same fair market value as if the land were not under restriction. 070515 Selectboard 1