Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 11/16/2022
HARDWICK – After weeks of public hearings, Board of Selectmen (BOS) meetings and a citizens’ petition, registered voters might become the deciding factor on the proposal that has been lurking over the town.
The BOS voted 2-1 to approve the Commonwealth Equine and Agricultural Center (CEAC) LLC race track location at 228 Barre Rd., during their Nov. 9 meeting. In spite of the board’s decision, the issue could still come down to a special town election.
Residents opposed to the track have the opportunity to submit a citizens’ petition, requesting the board reconsider their approval. Town Clerk Ryan Witkos explained, “Those opposed to the decision must file a petition with 12 percent of the registered voters with my office within 20 days from [Nov. 9]. The board then must reconsider their vote.”
After reconsideration, if the board still stays in the affirmative, a special election would take place. Witkos said a special election cannot be called any sooner than 35 days from the date of that decision.
He continued, “Unless and until that petition is filed, and the board remains in the affirmative after reconsideration, there is no special election.”
A citizens’ petition is what ultimately led to the board’s approval, because on Oct. 27, they initially unanimously voted against the proposal. On Nov. 7, however, the BOS received a citizens’ petition with over 420 signatures from residents asking the board to reconsider their vote. As a result, the board reversed its initial decision and approved the proposal.
In the course of their many deliberations on the proposed racing facility, the board had discussed the idea of turning the vote over to the townspeople. During a discussion at the Oct. 24 BOS meeting, Chair Julie Quink shared that residents don’t believe the BOS should be the ones making the decision, to which she agreed. “We have listened to public forums, we’ve gotten numerous emails, we’ve talked to people, we’ve gotten emails from outside our community, both for and against.”
She explained that the only way the decision could be turned over to the town is if the board were to vote “yes.”
Robert Ruggles, vice chair, added, “Everybody in this town wants to vote on this, that can vote.”
Kelly Kemp, BOS member, said, “I have thought back and forth about how I feel. I have listened to everyone that has reached out, I even met up with some of you [and] I’ve actually stopped people that I saw out and asked them too.”
Strong opinions regarding the proposed facility have been voiced since it was first introduced.
After meeting with the applicant, a while back, Kemp shared that her initial thoughts were, “This could be great.” However, she also told the applicants, “Be prepared and I mean really prepared. The folks of Hardwick take Hardwick pretty seriously and they don’t like change.”
Kemp went on to say, “We do need change and growth, so how?” She asked residents to “put some substance behind their words” that have been shared over the past couple of weeks on this matter.
Complicating matters was an unexpected change in the timeline to make a decision.
Before initially voting on the horse track location, Ruggles asked the board if they would mind waiting until the Massachusetts Gaming Commission had their meeting on Oct. 31, to see if they addressed any unanswered questions.
Quink asked participants if it would meet their expectations to postpone the vote until they have more information from the Gaming Commission. The majority answered “yes.” A motion to postpone the vote until Nov. 1 was approved.
While the vote was expected on Nov. 1, Quink informed Reminder Publishing that the Gaming Commission could not host a meeting/hearing until the BOS voted. As a result, the board scheduled a meeting on Oct. 27 at which they rendered their initial decision to reject the project.
As the board is responsible for representing the people of Hardwick, Quink said, “[I] should be following what they want.” Based on extensive feedback from the town, she noted that a “significant” number of residents were against the proposal, ultimately leading to her disapproval.
After receiving the citizen’s petition, the BOS informed residents of it that evening, during their meeting. Quink noted that a meeting was scheduled for Nov. 9 to discuss the petition. “Procedurally, the board does not have to consider this petition,” she said. She added that they would not be entertaining any public comment during that meeting, aside from hearing one of the petitioners.
The petition, which was addressed to the board, asked for reconsideration of their Oct. 27 vote regarding Great Meadowbrook Farm and the CEAC. The letter read, “We respectfully ask you to designate this site to enable a citizen committee to negotiate the Host Community Agreement and give voters a voice in this important community decision. Over the past week we have collected hundreds of signatures from residents who support this project with many more eager to do the same.”
The petition went on to list several benefits that the CEAC has proposed to have including preserving Great Meadowbrook’s farmland, creating educational opportunities for students, $500,000 in revenue to the town every year, job opportunities, among others.
“By bringing this to a town vote you are putting the future of Great Meadowbrook Farm into the hands of the entire town of Hardwick, not a small group,” read the petition.
It continued, “We understand Hardwick is facing several important issues. However, we believe this proposal is a once in a generation opportunity to preserve a cherished farm, provide jobs for residents and infuse much needed revenue into our budget.”
Before hearing from Devon Ruud, the designated petitioner to speak on Nov. 9, Quink explained the purpose of the meeting. “The purpose of this meeting is for the board to make the decision on whether we want to reconsider our vote and if that motion is made and carries, whether we want to rescind and change our mind on this,” she said.
Ruud began by thanking the board for giving them the opportunity to make their voices heard.
She shared that the 420 signatures were collected within five days. She also noted that 340 of which are registered citizens, although that does not matter as it is a binding petition.
While there are people who support the project, are against the project and some still on the fence, Ruud stressed that the residents should be the ones making the final decision.
“We’ve been stuck in the same place for years and years and we’re just slowly degrading,” she said. To revive the town, Ruud believes that a move needs to be made to benefit not only future generations, but current ones as well.
Following Ruud’s remarks, Quink laid out all the board’s options. She explained that if they vote yes, one is to reconsider and one is to vote on the proposal again. “If the majority of the board votes yes on the proposal, then it would start the process again, whereby 12 percent of the population could get a petition together, submit it to the board [and] ask for us to reconsider.”
She continued, “If we don’t reconsider our vote and it stays yes, then it can go to a binding special election.”
John Stefanini of Great Meadowbrook Farm said they would be willing to pay for a binding special election. However, with a non-binding referendum, he shared, “it means nothing” and will prolong and repeat this process for another year. “We’re just asking, can we proceed? Can we go to the Planning Board, can we come back to the selectmen with plans, can we do engineering and designs, drawings, can we start breeding horses? A non-binding election doesn’t allow us to do any of that and asks us [to] go spend $4 million [to purchase the property],” he said.
After speaking with Zen Acres, Stefanini said it is unlikely that Zen Acres will give the applicant an extension. “If we don’t purchase the property by the end of February [2023], then you’ll see some other application or something else.”
To avoid the lengthy process, Stefanini said, “If you want to have a decision, let the community make a decision.”
Ruggles asked if there was any way to expedite this process, rather than going through the entire thing again. Without one, he made a motion to reconsider the vote made on Oct. 27 to deny the horse track location on Barre Road.
Before voting, Quink noted that she still feels the same way about the proposal, however, it’s become “overwhelmingly clear” that the decision is too much for the board to make and it should be up to the townspeople.
Quink and Ruggles voted in favor of the reconsideration, Kemp was opposed.
Ruggles then made a motion to approve the proposal of the horse track location. Quink said, “The approval is conditional or subject to these conditions: The Host Community Agreement, obtaining all necessary permits and approvals and agricultural land preservation. These things need to be in place, the approval is conditional on it.”
The motion was carried with Quink and Ruggles voting in favor and Kemp opposed.
As this process has already gone on for quite some time, Quink said, “I think the three of us are sort of sitting up here somber because we felt this was the decision we needed to go with.”
She noted that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, “but it doesn’t feel like a good yes vote,” she said.
Gaming Commission
On Oct. 18, over 60 people gathered in the Hardwick Elementary School gymnasium for a public meeting/hearing hosted by the Gaming Commission. The hearing was relative to the application for a license to hold or conduct a new racing meeting submitted by the CEAC.
The commissioners in attendance were Chairman Cathy Judd-Stein, Eileen O’Brien, Brad Hill, Nakisha Skinner and Jordan Maynard.
Judd-Stein led the meeting. She informed attendees that anyone wishing to speak had to register ahead of time or sign-up upon arrival. She shared that all the comments – both written and verbal – will assist in their decision-making process.
Judd-Stein said, “The public support for this proposal or lack thereof is a factor that the commission will evaluate in making the final abore of the license.”
Before public comment, the applicant presented an overview of their proposal. Stefanini explained that they are proposing to breed, train and race thoroughbred horses on their 359 acres of Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) land.
They are also proposing to build a grass track on the farm. For 2023, he said they have applied to race for only two days: Sept. 9 and 10. Stefanini explained that this coincides with the hay cutting operation. However, he noted that they do not plan on operating more than six weekends a year.
Stefanini assured that sports betting will not be allowed at the proposed location.
He went on to say that they plan on having 25 to 50 full-time employees along with 100 or more paid volunteers to assist during the festival days.
Based on the proposal, Stefanini said they have an annual revenue estimate of $500,000 to Hardwick, which is unrestricted.
He noted that they have submitted a drafted Host Community Agreement to the town. Included in that is a local advisory committee. The committee will conduct evaluations before and after the festivals, along with reviewing parking and traffic on an annual basis.
When it came time for public comment, about 30 individuals – residents of Hardwick and nearby towns – shared their thoughts on the potential horse track.
Barbara Kellogg, a Massachusetts horse and landowner, said, “The citizens of Hardwick have had five weeks to try to absorb and process information about this application which is a project that is going to transform their town forever.”
She continued, “In the meantime, these developers have been searching for a site for years, to any place where they could finagle a racing license so that they could start gambling.”
William Van Arsdell, an abutter to the property in mention, shared, “I am in favor of the development. I am in favor of growth, I am in favor of this town moving forward, but only if we do it carefully and thoughtfully and we just haven’t had the time to do that.” Van Arsdell said, there are several issues that still need to be addressed, including the APR on that land.
Neil Dawson, Hardwick resident, agreed that the project is rushed. “They were at the 50-yard line before anyone knew they were here,” said Dawson. He shared that this decision is solely based on the developer’s timeline, not the residents. “Their timeline does not have to be our timeline. This is the biggest decision in Hardwick in 100 years.”
For Hardwick resident James Lagomarsino, his concerns lie with the traffic that the track will generate. “Commonwealth racing estimates 3,000 to 5,000 attendees on race days during the first three years. This alone would have a significant impact on our town.”
He continued, “Saratoga racing has a total of over 100,000 fans during the first four days. Hardwick won’t draw that number but consider that Saratoga and Hardwick might be the only two thoroughbred racing options in most of New York and all of New England.”
Lagomarsino said neighboring towns such as Ware and New Braintree need time to weigh on this proposal, as the traffic will be affecting them too.
Robert Page, Hardwick resident, said, “This project is flawed, rushed and due diligence has not been done.” For a decision to even be made, he said they need information not from the developers, but from independent, impartial experts.
Stan Remiszewski, chair of the Board of Health, shared that his board has recognized several concerns with the proposal, but decided to focus on three. The concerns, as mentioned by Remiszewski, are that the project is on an accelerated timeline, there is a lack of information sharing and processing and that the review process needs to be started.
In the application submitted by the enterprise, Remiszewski noted that there was no mention of public health, safety, wellbeing and what it means to be or not be a nuisance.
Ellen Anderson, a resident of Petersham, said, “I would like to take issue with Mr. Stefanini who says this is primarily agricultural. This is clearly incorrect. It does not conform to local zoning, it’s going to require a special permit, moreover, this is protected property.”
Several residents mentioned their draw to the beauty and size of Hardwick, which has remained unchanged for centuries. Whereas others, such as Ruud, said without change and money coming in, the town is a “sinking ship.”
Elizabeth Ciren, Hardwick resident, asked the Gaming Commission where people that are coming to visit the track will be able to fill their gas tanks, eat food and spend the night, as there are little to no options in Hardwick. “It’s not going to happen,” she said.
Some residents were conflicted on the proposal. Lisa Profit, resident of Hardwick, said she has not made up her mind on this yet, but asked the commission to extend their timeframe or reapply after the town and surrounding towns have done their due diligence.
Michelle Arnhold, Hardwick resident, shared that she is in favor of the proposal. She noted that Resort Developer of Great Meadowbrook Farm, Richard Fields, and his team have been “more than transparent” throughout the process, answering questions that many have. With the money that the track will generate, Arnhold is hopeful that this will fix the roads, improve the schools and police station and provide first responders with additional assistance.
“The jobs – both temporary and permanent that this will create – will be phenomenal,” she added.
After the public hearing ended, Stefanini explained, at the beginning of this process, they are asking for approval to continue the process. This includes going through the Planning Board, Agricultural Land Preservation Committee, doing a survey of the property, a site plan review, traffic study and so on. Each step of the way requires another permit.
To reiterate answers to the commonly asked questions, Stefanini said there will not be any parking on this site. Instead, they will utilize adjacent properties, shuttle buses and more.
He continued, “This track is not a casino. It cannot legally be a casino, it isn’t a good location for a casino, we’re not proposing a casino, we’re not proposing a betting hall, we’re not proposing those activities which you [Gaming Commission] angulate and you deal with, nor are we prepared to come to you and ask for any of those things if they were legal.”
Based on racehorse developments, funds and other reasons, Stefanini shared, he doesn’t expect the race days to grow much more than two each year. However, these “two precious days,” as described by Stefanini, will bring in revenue to the town.