Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
| By Sarah M. Corigliano Assistant Managing Editor EAST LONGMEADOW For anyone who thought the new retail size cap in town was a done deal, they might want to think again. While the by-law has been in effect since initial public hearings on Article 23 were conducted in town and it passed at the May 1 Annual Town Meeting, a decision by Attorney General Tom Reilly to reject the by-law could render it null and void. And two groups are trying to influence his decision. Last week, Terence Burke, special assistant for communication at the Attorney General's Office said a decision to approve or disapprove of the by-law had not yet been made, and Reilly at that point had not sought more clarification from the town. He has until Aug. 28, 90 business days from the submission of the by-law to his office, to render a decision. On July 19, potential Lowe's developers and owners of the Heritage Park Plaza on North Main Street filed with the Attorney General's Office a letter outlining their legal objections to the by-law which restricts retail developments to a total of 65,000 square feet. The members of East Longmeadow First, residents and business owners who have endeavored to reign in big retail developments in town, announced last week that, through Shutesbury attorney Michael Pill, they filed their own letter at the Attorney General's Office, in opposition to the developer's letter, defending the legality of the by-law they supported. Both files contain more than 30 pages of statements and exhibits to support their arguments and copies of the letters have been sent to the East Longmeadow Planning Office. Burke said any files sent to the Attorney General's office would be taken into consideration when making a decision about Article 23, as long as the files received present a constitutional argument. Keith Hague, Edens & Avant's Northeast Director of Development, last week released a written statement, as follows. "On July 19, on behalf of Heritage Park (E&A), LLC, a letter was submitted to the Attorney General regarding a zoning by-law amendment recently adopted by the Town of East Longmeadow. "The Heritage Park letter describes how the procedures used to adopt the amendment violated requirements of state law and the by-laws of the Town of East Longmeadow.The letter explains that the amendment lacksany planning support and was enacted for the purpose of stopping a particular development proposal. "The amendment purports to limitto 65,000 square feet thecumulative size ofnearby retail buildings regardless of lot size. The effect of theamendmentis to create different rules for identical parcels of land similarly situatedwithin the business and industrial zoning districts of the town. "For these reasons, we believe the by-law does not comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. "Heritage Park isrequesting that the Attorney General takeits opinion into considerationin reviewing the amendment. We look forward to the outcome of this request." Edens & Avant, owners of the Heritage Park shopping plaza, sought to build a Lowe's home improvement store on a parcel of land behind their existing development. One week before Annual Town Meeting, the developers proposed to improve road and traffic conditions on North Main Street as part of their development plans. They proposed widening the street and adding a driveway to the plaza across from Harkness Avenue. The following week Article 23 passed with more than the 2/3 required majority and at the time the company said they would still consider their options for developing the property. After sending the company's written statement regarding its letter to the Attorney General, an Edens & Avant spokesperson, Julie Culbreath said, "We are exploring various options for development of this property." The project is being run through Edens & Avant's Northeast office in Boston. Last week, East Longmeadow Selectman James Driscoll defended the by-law he sponsored, which he authored with the assistance of Town Counsel James Donahue, and the way he submitted it. Donahue agreed. "They [The Board of Selectmen] have the right to petition under chapter 40A, section 5," he said of Driscoll submitting the article as an individual selectman. "The Board of Selectmen have right to petition any warrant ... because the Board of Selectmen call the warrant." He also referred to the text that outlines the procedures Selectmen follow when filing articles for the Annual Town Meeting warrant, showing that they allow for an individual Selectman to file an article as long as the other members of the Board of Selectmen do not oppose it or request more discussion before filing it. He added that the Selectmen can technically sponsor any type of article they deem necessary, whether it relates to public works projects, the schools or, in this case, zoning. "I think what we did was actually pro business legislation in the long run," Driscoll said last week. "We're not going to sit there and be dictated to as to how people do business in town. We're a very pro business town, our industrial park is a perfect example." Driscoll was confident last week that the Attorney General would find the by-law to be in line with the state Constitution. However, if it is rejected, "we would appeal, absolutely." "I have been a regular attendee at town meetings, and I have never seen a piece of legislation pass with such a vast majority," he said. "The voters have spoken." He continued, "I don't blame the developers [for filing the memorandum]. But they were not effective ... and we followed the law." |
| Letters to Attorney General argue each side | ||