Project Halted at Last Moment ; Alleged Wetlands Alteration at Center of Quarrel, Legal Action is Threatened

By JENNIFER MANN

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.”

Jennifer Mann may be reached at jmann@ledger.com.

(c) 2007 Patriot Ledger, The; Quincy, Mass.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.