Published: 12/7/2020 2:35:32 PM
It can seem bewildering why so many people these days are giving up on optimism and embracing cynicism. Then something blatantly cynical occurs — like the situation unfolding in Deerfield right now — and bewilderment gives way to a reluctant sense of understanding.
What is happening in Deerfield, you ask? A lawyer is trying to trap the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) into giving a developer a blank check to build a huge box store on a soggy piece of land. That waterlogged parcel on Mill Village Road could scarcely accommodate a 4,000-square-foot building, which is what is allowed “by right” under the town’s voter-approved zoning bylaws.
To understand how the trap is supposed to work, let’s examine some history about the proposed development in light of recent actions by the lawyer. In December 2018, the Planning Board denied South Deerfield DG Series LLC’s project designs and stormwater plans for a 9,319-square-foot box store. The board was immediately dragged into Land Court in Boston by the developer in an attempt to bully the town to accept its plans.
Fast forward to 2020. This year the developer has been employing divide-and-conquer tactics, appearing separately before the ZBA, Planning Board and Conservation Commission (ConsCom).
THE ZBA: In January, the ZBA began public hearings on the developer’s request for a special permit for a building 2.33 times larger than the bylaws allow by right — even though the building plans rejected by the Planning Board were still tied up in court. Then the COVID-19 pandemic struck. This has slowed the ZBA hearings (which are ongoing), causing frustration among board members and town residents alike.
THE CONSCOM: On Oct. 23, the developer’s lawyer made a calculated decision to bypass the ConsCom, which in August had been asked by the developer to determine whether wetlands exist on the building site — and seek an immediate ruling from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which he considered an impartial arbiter. Deerfield for Responsible Development, a local citizens group, decided to ask the ConsCom to make the same determination about wetlands in the Route 5 highway right of way, which abuts the building site. Deerfield for Responsible Development had already provided town boards with scientific evidence about wetlands in the building site and right of way in 2018.
On Nov. 27, the DEP issued two unequivocal rulings that validated Deerfield for Responsible Development ‘s evidence: bordering vegetated wetlands, which bare subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, exist both in the building site and in the right of way. These wetlands feed directly into Bloody Brook, contributing to flooding in South Deerfield.
The DEP also said the developer would have to go back before the ConsCom because the Wetlands Protection Act “prohibits removal, dredging, filling, or altering of wetlands without a permit.” This was not the answer the lawyer wanted to receive because the developer, South Deerfield DG Series LLC, might have to go back to the drawing board for an entirely new site plan.
THE PLANNING BOARD: On Oct. 15, almost two years after the Planning Board rejected the developer’s original site plans, public hearings began on the “remand” documents arrived at in Land Court. During these hearings, the developer’s lawyer has repeatedly threatened further court action. This level of disdain for the town is unacceptable.
Deerfield for Responsible Development, meanwhile, brought the Planning Board new scientific evidence from an eminent hydrologist — evidence that validates the board’s reasons for rejecting the developer’s plans. The hydrologist’s report shows that the developer used incorrect soil data to make calculations about stormwater run-off from the building site (even though the developer’s own “experts” cited the correct soil data in other sections of the site plan documents).
Using the correct soil types, the hydrologist stated, would double the amount of stormwater runoff if the box store gets built according to the existing plans. Bloody Brook, in other words, would receive twice the runoff from the building site after development. This evidence has been shared with the ZBA, which is required to consider the environment before granting a Special Permit.
Now to the trap being set for the ZBA. Knowing full well that the DEP’s rulings on bordering vegetated wetlands could require a totally new site plan, the lawyer — just three days before the Planning Board’s Dec. 7 hearing — sent a letter asking the board to delay further public discussion of the “remand” until January 2021.
But the lawyer has purposely not asked the ZBA to delay its Dec. 9 hearing — even though the ZBA has until February 2021 to decide on the special permit request. This is the lawyer’s gambit: He is hoping the ZBA will approve the special request, granting the developer a blank check for a project without actually knowing what would be built.
Deerfield’s ZBA members are too smart to fall for this trick.
Unless the lawyer immediately withdraws this request without prejudice, the board members should just vote not on the special permit and wait until they know what they are voting to approve.
Tolly Stark is a founder and chair of Deerfield for Responsible Development.
0 Response to "My Turn: No blank check in Deerfield - The Recorder"
Post a Comment