ARCHIVES
Project halted at last moment;
Alleged wetlands alteration at center of quarrel,
legal action is threatened
By JENNIFER MANN
The Patriot Ledger
SCITUATE - With a series of emergency actions
this week, Scituate officials have halted plans for
a controversial housing development, responding to
allegations that the developer paid for farming
activities four years ago that altered wetlands on
the site.
Neighbors contend that by plowing, harrowing and
planting winter rye on the former Watson Farm in
2004, the developer was able to misrepresent the
amount of buildable land in a wetlands delineation
submitted to the town six months later.
The conservation commission voted 3-2 to ratify an
enforcement order, buying time to look further into
the allegations.
Neighbors hailed the decision as a major victory.
‘‘Justice was done,’’ said Gloria Hollstein. ‘‘This
is where town government worked, and I hope it
continues to work.’’
The developer’s attorney, however, is threatening
legal action.
‘‘We are outraged,’’ said Peter Freeman, of Freeman
Davis & Stearns. ‘‘We’ll be taking every proper
legal action against the town, starting with Mr.
Duggan.’’
Neil Duggan, the town’s zoning enforcement officer,
was appointed conservation agent for the project
Wednesday, after it languished for months without a
town point person.
Duggan issued the enforcement order just days
later, explaining the clock was ticking: Town
counsel said the commission loses its authority to
intervene on Monday, three years after the developer
purchased the property.
‘‘If the board doesn’t act now, you’ve basically
given up your ability to act,’’ he said during a
packed meeting Thursday, at which only he and
conservation commission members could speak.
‘‘You don’t take somebody to court and issue an
action against them without hearing from them
first,’’ countered attorney Janet Stearns yesterday.
‘‘That’s against any basic principles of due
process.’’
The developer wants to build 60 condominiums on
about 15 acres of land off Route 3A: the old Watson
Farm property, purchased for $830,000 in 2004, and a
1-acre parcel for which the developer agreed in
March 2006 to pay $875,000.
The latter is owned by the wife of the town’s
permanent conservation agent, Vincent Kalishes, who
has recused himself from the matter.
Five of the buildings - some four stories tall -
would be built on 4 acres of the site. The remaining
11 acres are salt marsh, marine forest and meadows.
The project, marked by controversies including
conflict-of-interest questions, is proposed under
Chapter 40B. The state’s affordable housing law
exempts developers from local zoning laws if 25
percent of the project’s units are sold as
affordable.
Whether there was wrongdoing hinges on several
factors: if the area farmed was wetlands, and if so,
whether the activity affected the environment.
Engineers for the developer and neighbors have
submitted opposing documentation, and both sides are
expected to speak at a Monday hearing.
A purchase-and-sales agreement from November 2003
shows Tom Doherty, a former conservation
commissioner and then development partner, agreed to
pay for the farming activity.
Neighbors also have testimony from those who
performed and observed the work.
‘‘Why would a developer who is going to buy the land
six months later pay to have it plowed, harrowed and
mowed?’’ posed neighbor Werner Boehl. ‘‘It’s
obviously to mask the wetlands.
Stearns questioned why the debate is arising now -
four years after work that she said conservation
commissioners knew of in approving the wetlands
delineation.
Rod Gaskell, an engineer for the developer, said
farming the land preserves an agricultural exemption
under the state’s Wetlands Protection Act, which
expires after five years with no activity.
‘‘When we finally stop all this political nonsense
... one option we want to keep on the table is
allowing the town to keep it as a corn field,’’ he
said.
Duggan disputed that, saying the developer has never
shown proof of an agricultural exemption, and
mentioning there is testimony that nothing has been
grown on the field for 10 years.
Conservation commission members argued heatedly
Thursday over whether to issue the order, saying
they are still parsing the information.
Ken Conway urged waiting on a decision until after
the Monday hearing, despite concerns over the
deadline.
‘‘I don’t find our town counsel’s legal opinions
very rigorous,’’ he said, adding, ‘‘No matter which
way we go, we’re in a box.’’
Member Frank Snow responded: ‘‘If I’m going to be
sued by anybody, I’d rather be sued by the developer
than the abutters.’’
YOUR VIEWS
How should the town handle the Watson Farm
development controversy?
Write: Your Views, The Patriot Ledger, 400 Crown
Colony Drive, Quincy, MA 02169
Call: 781-340-3156
E-mail:
Editpage@ledger.com
Please include your home address and telephone
number.
Jennifer Mann may be reached at
jmann@ledger.com
.
Copyright 2007 The Patriot Ledger
Transmitted Saturday, April 28, 2007 |
