Again, I do think Karp's partner is being a little cavalier here. I now see why.
Jay Doherty, president of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, stressed that the lawsuit would not halt the development's construction. He said the developers will take advantage of changes to state law, made during the Romney administration, which allow developers to continue with a project while an appeal of a local board's decision is pending in court.
While the developers run the risk of spending money on a project for which the court may ultimately nullify a local board's approval, Doherty said the court rarely overturns a local board's decision. And this project, he noted, underwent thorough review by the Planning Board and also received several approvals to changes in zoning by Town Meeting to allow for its construction
I'm not necessarily a fan of these suits, particularly as they're used more often as a bludgeon by angry abutters to a reasonable project.
I was on the other end of this type of suit while I served on the Sutton planning board. In one case, a group of residents sued to nullify the board's approval of a Home Depot distribution center.
Say what you want about Home Depot (I hate it), the center would have been located off a highway in an industrial park. The board crossed every T and dotted every I, yet the abutters sued anyway.
Home Depot didn't feel like waiting around two-plus years until a land court judge ruled in the Planning Board's favor. (Note, I wasn't on the board during the decision. But I was there when the judgment came down.)
Now before we get all wrapped up in the notion that chain stores don't care. In a second case, a group of neighbors sued over the Planning Board's approval of a locally-owned landscaping business. The business met every bit of zoning. There were some complications but the process was open and fair and frankly the project would have cleaned up an existing environmental hazard.
Still, the business owner walked instead of trying to fight a suit.
New England Development & Co. clearly isn't going to walk away from the Westwood project. But boy it will be interesting to watch if a land court judge finds in the plaintiff's favor.
Bonus point: The Globe article is written by Daily News alumnus James "Jamie" Vaznis.
3 comments:
Tom,
I don't think is a case of abutter NIMBYism. Here's a quote for the Patriot Ledger story:
Opponents say plans for a new off-ramp on the northbound side of Interstate 95 will encourage drivers to take a shortcut through Canton and residential neighborhoods, particularly when traffic backs up at the merge to Interstate 93.
‘‘That ramp is going to create a devastating impact on the neighborhoods and there’s nothing in the decision to control any aspect of it,’’ said John Harding, an attorney for the six neighbors."
Knowing that area I think the neighbors have a ligitimate concern. The new off ramp from 95-N will indeed provide a short cut for thousands of cars heading to boston who want to avoid backups at the congested 95/93 interchange.
Such an off-ramp would have the same negative impact even if the westwood station project didn't exist.
Fair point, but traffic is always the chief concern with larger projects.
I didn't necessarily mean to lump this lawsuit in with the others as I don't know the particulars.
It just seems that litigation is becoming an regular part of the review process. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
I do have one question. The state and probably the Feds are the ones responsible for any off-ramps and exits.
This wouldn't seem to be a local planning board issue.
Tom,
I understand that traffic is a concern with such a project - but in this case, it's traffic that's not accessing the project.
The ramp responsibility is an interesting point - but if you look at what's going on in Seabrook, the planning board there is involved with issues concerning a state road and access to I-95. Of course in the Seabrook case, they are mitigating project traffic rather than creating non-project traffic.
Another issue as that most if not all of the benefit (tax revenue) is in Westwood, but those negatively impacted by cut-through traffic are in Canton.
I do agree though that NIMBYism, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (BANANA) and most common in Newburyport - I Have Mine To Bad For You (sorry, no clever acronym for this one) have become commonplace.
Post a Comment