Bullet Points for Joe Gallagher

• In the mid-80s, Mark Moore obtained a Special Permit to build Bedfordshire Condominiums under these express terms:

- The existing golf course and ski tow would be permanently shut down and all electrical utilities removed from these areas down the embankment.

- 13.5 acres known as Parcel ‘D’ would be deeded to the Town of Bedford as Conservation Land, governed by corresponding restrictions on land use, as spelled out in State law.

- Parcel ‘C’ would be left as open space “in its natural and scenic state” to be used for “passive recreation only.”

- Both Parcel ‘C’ and Parcel ‘D’ would have identical land use restrictions spelled out by law for lands designated as Conservation Land, Wetlands, and Flood Plain: No modifications to the land contours; no motorized vehicles; no construction of permanent structures.

• Mark Moore complied with those terms. Parcels ‘C’ and ‘D’ both went back to nature and were in that state when the Zolnays bought their unit in 1987 and when I bought mine in 1988.

• After Mark Moore completed construction of all the condo units, he turned over the dozen or so unsold units to a New Hampshire real estate marketing company known as Alfred McAlpine.

• Around 1991, the Vice President of Alfred McAlpine, acting on his own, and without any notification or consent from either the existing Unit Owners or the Town of Bedford, mowed down the waist-high grass and, at his own expense, salvaged the four holes that had once resided on Parcel ‘C’, in the hopes this would boost sales. He determined that the fifth hole, behind the pump house, was on town-owned Conservation Land (Parcel ‘D’) and so he did not salvage it. However, he did install a gasoline powered engine in the pump house, so as to pump water from the adjacent ponds (which connect to the Shawsheen River) to provide irrigation services. It’s not clear if he knew the pump house was also sited on the town-owned Conservation Land.

• Alfred McAlpine eventually had a “fire sale” to sell the remaining unsold units (including the demonstrator model, which Dick Mazow bought at a 25% discount from the original asking price). The four-hole golf course had not served the purpose of boosting sales during the slump in the housing market.

• Having sold all remaining units, Alfred McAlpine then withdrew, advising the Unit Owners that it was up to them to decide what to do with the four holes he had been maintaining.

• The Unit Owners then began setting up their own governance board, with 5 Trustees. The initial officers included Frank and Pat Carney (the son-in-law and daughter of Mark Moore) and their business associate, Roger Walker. Elizabeth Zolnay was the first Treasurer. She can confirm (or correct) any of these details.

• At the first Annual Meeting, the Unit Owners, by majority vote, agreed to maintain the four holes for one year, while deciding what to do with them. Nothing was decided during that first year, and so an identical vote took place at the second annual meeting. As of the third annual meeting, no further votes were taken, and the Board simply folded the continuing cost of maintenance into the overall landscaping budget.

• Under the direction of Roger Walker, moneys were collected from a number of otherwise unidentified golfers to pay to salvage the fifth hole, which is sited on the town-owned Conservation Land. The Board continued to include continuing maintenance in the landscape budget.

• In the early 90s, each newly added hole cost about $5000 to construct, and about as much to maintain each successive year. Today, it's closer to $15,000 per hole to maintain them.

• Thereafter, Roger Walker and others continued to collect moneys to further modify Parcel ‘C’ to add several more holes and greens that had never previously existed on the property. Contrary to the requirements of the Bylaws and state law, these alterations to the Common Areas were carried out without notification or consent from the Town, and without the required vote of all Unit Owners. According to remarks from Roger Walker, he passed these funds to “Lou and his son” to carry out the work. At no time were the Unit Owners notified or afforded their right to vote on these alterations to expand the golf course.

• My objection to these irregularities led to the suit and counter-suit in the mid-90s between myself the Board. In the course of that dispute, the Boston Globe carried two stories, which are posted on my website, along with many other documents from the case.

• Parcel ‘C’ is ill-suited to be the site of a golf course, as it’s a wetlands and a flood plain. That's the main reason the Bedford Country Club went bankrupt in the mid-80s.

• Altering the contours of the land (raised Tees and Greens) reduces the carrying capacity of the flood plain, which is a violation of state law. Pumping irrigation water out of the Shawsheen might also be a violation, as there is a limit to how much water one can draw without a permit from the State Department of Environmental Protection.

• At any time in the future, the Town or the State could challenge Bedfordshire on the irregularities of land use on Parcels ‘C’ and ‘D’, in contravention of the terms agreed upon in the Special Permit when the condos were built.

• At any time in the future, beavers could build a dam on the Shawsheen and flood the golf course. In the past, beavers have built dams on other sections of the Shawsheen, including one that flooded the Frost Conservation Area a few years ago.

• The covenants spelling out land use restrictions on the Conservation Land were supposed to be enforced by the Conservation Commission. But for reasons unbeknownst to me or other town officials quoted in the Globe, this responsibility was inexplicably transferred to the Condo Board. The Board routinely ignores these land use restrictions, in contravention of our obligations to steward the flood plain, wetlands, and Conservation Land in accordance with state law.

• The Condo Documents, including the Site Plan, Master Deed, and Bylaws make no mention of a golf course and provide no funding mechanism for one, as there was no golf course when the condos were approved and built. The golf course does not appear as an asset on the tax rolls, as it was constructed “off the books” without notification or approval from the town.

• It would be prudent to either devise a way to properly correct these irregularities, or else let the golf course go back to nature, where it could still be used, for example, as a driving range, consistent with “passive recreation.”

• When the foot bridge behind the pump house floated off its moorings during a flood, the Board did go to the town to obtain permission to build a new foot bridge on the Conservation Land. I believe this may have been a requirement of the contractor who was commissioned to do the work. He would not have wanted to jeopardize his license by carrying out unapproved work on Conservation Land.

• The Unit Owners who were unlawfully deprived of their right to vote on these unauthorized modifications to the common areas should be relieved of the burden of having to fund the continuing maintenance of the golf course which a minority of unit owners surreptitiously caused to be constructed without the requisite approvals and without an appropriate funding mechanism.

• The current Board should seek to discover the true and candid answers to the Interrogatories which I submitted during the litigation, and which the Board (under Dick Mazow) refused to answer.

• In addition to Elizabeth Zolnay, you may wish to ask Gretchen Annese, who studiously reviewed the minutes of the Board to determine the extent to which the construction of the golf course was carried out “off the books” and without the requisite notification and approvals as required by state law and the Bylaws.

Barry Kort

December 1, 2018