The Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals has denied an appeal made by Mill Street area residents seeking to revoke the building permit issued for work on the planned Western Massachusetts Correctional Addiction Center at 149-151 Mill St.
SPRINGFIELD -- The Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals has denied an appeal made by Mill Street area residents seeking to revoke the building permit issued for work on the planned Western Massachusetts Correctional Addiction Center at 149-151 Mill St.
Although three out of five Zoning Board members supported the residents' appeal, a 4-1 vote was necessary to grant their request to revoke the permit, which was issued on Feb. 4.
"I feel the residents' frustration, but we are here to make a decision on the request made before us," said Daniel Morrissey, who along with Andrew Wall voted to deny the appeal.
Members Norman Roldan, George Bruce and Walter Gould voted in favor of the appeal.
Chairwoman Brenda Doherty recused herself from the hearing, but it was unclear why. She did not return calls from The Republican.
"It's difficult because most of us voted for the residents, but according to our bylaws they needed 4-1 for it to happen," said Roldan.
The three-hour public hearing on Wednesday night at City Hall brought up the same questions that have plagued the relocation of the correctional addiction center, which is operated by the Hampden County Sheriff's Department, for nearly a year now -- Is it a jail or an educational facility? Were residents properly informed of the relocation before a lease was signed?
Neither question was cleared up to the satisfaction of residents during the meeting, and zoning board members expressed concerns about what the residents, who are represented by Attorney Shawn Allyn, were asking for.
While Allyn filed a request to have the building permit revoked according to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A Section 8, which deals with zoning matters, Morrissey said it seemed that Allyn actually intended to challenge the building commissioner for not enforcing current zoning ordinances which classify the Mill Street area as a mixed-use residential and commercial zone.
Addiction center's planned relocation to Mill Street in Springfield draws mixed reaction
Under Section 8 of the law, Allyn had 30 days to appeal the permit, and that ended on March 4. Under Section 7 of the law, Allyn or any "aggrieved person" would have six years to file a complaint against the city's building commissioner for failing to enforce zoning ordinances.
Allyn did not file the permit appeal by March 4. ZBA members chose to vote on the matter anyway.
After hearing from lawyers for both sides and speakers in favor of and against the appeal to revoke the building permit, the board considered tabling the vote until they could get clarification from Allyn, who had to leave the hearing before it culminated, about what his exact request was.
Members asked Associate City Solicitor Lisa DeSousa to explain the difference between the sections of the law that would either grant Allyn a 30-day period to appeal, which expired in March, or a six-year statute of limitations to get the city's building commissioner to enforce zoning ordinances, and then the board decided to vote.
"If it is deemed later by another court or another party who chooses to contest this based on the statue of limitations issue, they are free to do so, but as a board tonight we are called to make a decision on whether or not to grant this appeal," Morrissey said.
Allyn's argument has always been that the addiction center is a jail and not an educational facility. The sheriff's department refers to the addiction center as an educational facility under the Dover Amendment, a state law that exempts some developers from local zoning restrictions if a building project will have specific uses, such as an educational component.
That law, Allyn contends, offers "no exemption to put a jail in between two residential homes."
The Dover Amendment's exemption for nonprofit organizations with an educational mission does not apply to jails, Allyn said, adding, "A jail is not a nonprofit organization or an educational institution."
Roldan said he wanted the sheriff's department and its lawyers to be honest about the facility really is.
"I'm not denying the benefits of the program, it is a great program, but let's be honest with people. The individuals housed in the facility do not have free will to come and go, so I question the primary use being educational," he said.
Steve O'Neil, community affairs officer for the sheriff's department, said the facility is primarily for education.
"There has been a lot of confusion about what this facility really is. We don't have any confusion," he said. " The American Correctional Association has termed this as a residential educational treatment facility ... This facility is not a jail."
Derek Lewis, who has been vocal in his opposition to the facility being placed down the street from his home, said the community was never properly informed of the relocation. He said community meetings were held only to tell residents the site had already been selected by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance and then to inform them that a lease had been signed. He also contends that the facility is a jail and does not belong in a residential neighborhood.
"If you go on their website they refer to themselves as a correctional facility," Lewis said. "They employ correctional officers who go through training to keep the peace. ... In order to get into the program, just imagine you are looking at a flow chart. You have to be arrested, you have to be convicted and then you have to be sentenced to a correctional facility. Then they can put you in the program. ... This is not something that is open to anybody, and the primary function of a correctional facility is to house inmates, not education."
Attorney Thomas Day, who represents the sheriff's department, said while the addiction center is a minimum security facility, it does not lock people in.
"There isn't any slight of hand here. This is a minimum security correctional facility run by the sheriff's department, everybody knows that. Minimum security means that they are not locked in, there are no barbed wires or bars," he said. "The reason why they are here is because of the educational function of the program."
5 takeaways from lawsuit, complaints against sheriff's department, state
Gould questioned the difference between education and treatment.
"There is a fine line between the two," he said. "I''m hung up a bit, because I don't know that treatment really serves as education."
Resident Rhonda Stowell also spoke against the facility. She said after the June 2011 tornado, neighbors got together to plan a new vision for their community, and limiting, reducing or preventing any more group homes and treatment centers was a priority for the group.
"As a resident, as a property owner, as a parent and as a taxpayer, I believe that we already have too many similar types of programs in a small geographical location. Where else in the city or state do you have a methadone clinic, a homeless shelter, 10 to 12 group homes all on one street?" she said.
There are also those who welcome the facility.
Demetrios Panteleakis, who owns Mill Park Office Commons on Mill Street, has always been in favor of the program coming to the neighborhood.
"This vacant building, despite the enormous infusion of cash and development on the rest of the street, has remained an enormous blight. The amount of dumping because of how much of this space is unseen from the street is enormous, the amount of squatting on the property, and what comes along with squatting, has been detrimental to the street," he said. "In the short amount of time that there has been work on the facility, there has been a great reduction of the transient movement up and down the street. It has already had a tremendous impact."
With the board's decision not to revoke the building permit, work can continue on the facility. Developer Jeremy Lederer, of Mill Street Iconic, LLC, which owns the 149-151 Mill St. building, was present at the hearing.
Residents said they are still considering other avenues, including possibly a civil lawsuit. In March, Allyn dropped a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Mill Street resident Patricia Taste-Ray.