Letter from Mark A Marchionni, PHD
Immediate Letter: Housing Must Be Removed From Consideration
To the Liberty Ledge / Sewataro Advisory Committee
Today, the Committee posted two new documents on the LL/SAC website:
- The Housing Trust Resolution dated September 10, 2026
- The Survey Results from the 708‑response community questionnaire
The simultaneous posting of these items underscores a critical issue that must be addressed immediately: the continued presence of housing as a “future option” under Category No. 8: Protect the Property’s Natural Resources While Long‑Term Planning Is Underway.
The survey results require a close, focused review of all resident input on housing.
Across all sections of the survey — rankings, agreement/disagreement statements, and written comments — residents overwhelmingly reject housing of any kind anywhere on Liberty Ledge. This is not ambiguous, mixed, or open to interpretation.
Key Findings:
- Housing ranked last among all priority categories
- Affordable housing received a weighted score of 171
- Market‑rate housing received a weighted score of 126
- Summer camp received 1992
- Open space received 1775
- Residents strongly rejected housing even when paired with camp
- Written comments include hundreds of statements such as:
- “Preserve the land.”
- “Do not develop this property.”
- “Keep it natural.”
- “No housing.”
- “We voted on this already.”
These results are definitive.
Housing is not a community priority. It is not a community interest. It is not a community‑supported option, and unlike Camp Sewataro, housing on Liberty Ledge does not align with the core values of the community.
In addition, the whitepaper Liberty Ledge: A Natural Resource in Need of Our Protection documented substantial environmental constraints:
- wetlands
- slopes
- buffers
- stormwater sensitivity
- ecological value
- access limitations
- natural resource protection requirements
These constraints further undermine the feasibility of housing on this site.
Given these two facts — overwhelming resident rejection and significant environmental constraints — the Committee must now ask itself a direct governance question: What strong justification remains for keeping the door open to potential future housing on Liberty Ledge?
A feeling such as: “I just think we should keep the option open” is not a strong justification. It’s a feeling — that is all it is.
Category No. 8 requires immediate clarification.
Category No. 8 includes language about protecting natural resources while preserving flexibility for future uses. Some members have interpreted this as a reason to keep housing “on the table.”
The survey results make clear that housing is not a future potential use that residents support or want preserved as an option. Category No. 8 is about open space protection, not speculative development.
Category No. 6 is also being misapplied.
Category No. 6 calls for conducting studies over the next five years to determine “The suitability of different portions of the property for future municipal, recreational, conservation, housing, or other uses.”
None of these studies are needed for camp operations or for year‑round programming or for open space—the top three uses identified by Town input. Housing is the only reason these studies would be required.
Voters have rejected funding for studies or hiring consultants for the property in 2022 and in 2026. It is very likely that voters will reject any additional requests for studies, given residents identified viable alternatives elsewhere.
Several survey respondents explicitly listed Fairbank, Broadacres, and other centrally located municipal parcels as appropriate locations for future housing. This reinforces that the community is not rejecting housing as a concept — they are rejecting housing at Liberty Ledge, an environmentally sensitive property.
In addition, residents who follow the housing issue closely have identified multiple viable alternative parcels, such as Frost Farm for senior housing, that should be the focus of any future housing discussion.
A deed restriction remains a valid option.
Earlier in the process, the idea of placing a deed restriction on Liberty Ledge was raised as a way to protect the land permanently. This option should be revisited now that the survey results have made the community’s position unmistakably clear.
The Committee must remove housing from consideration in any form.
No ifs. No ands. No buts.
Housing is dead on arrival based on resident input. It should not appear in the Advisory Report as a viable land use option for Liberty Lege.. It should not be included under Category No. 8. It should not be kept open through Category No. 6 studies. It should not be framed as a “future possibility.”
Finally, this is not an invitation for the Housing Trust to re‑engage.
The Housing Trust was not asked by the Select Board to participate in LL/SAC’s work. Like other Town agencies or departments, they were invited to present their point of view at an open meeting, but that is the end of it. Similar opportunities were afforded to the Conservation Commission, the Board of Health, and the Camp Sewataro operator, but they are not playing any additional role in producing the Advisory Report.
Similarly, the resolution of the Housing Trust should not shape the Advisory Report. The Committee’s mandate is to reflect resident priorities, not external agendas.
The survey results must be respected and reported explicitly to the Select Board and Town.
Housing must be removed from the list of options. The Advisory Report must reflect the community’s clear and overwhelming position.
My position today is not new — it is simply more urgent. I have been consistent in my view that housing is not appropriate for Liberty Ledge, but I have also been measured in expressing it. The survey results now make the community’s stance unmistakably clear, and I am echoing their voices, not introducing my own. The Advisory Report must reflect the residents’ overwhelming rejection of housing on Liberty Ledge and their equally strong desire to preserve this land.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
— Mark Marchionni
