Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court says Canton can't stop mega-project just over the line in Westwood
By adamg on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 10:21am
The Supreme Judicial Court yesterday tossed out Canton's lawsuit against the proposed Westwood Station project in neighboring Westwood, ruling the town failed to file its complaints on time.
Canton argued state approval of the now stalled project was invalid because the town was never notified of a proposed sewer permit and so therefore the 30-day time limit for filing complaints had not started. Canton's main complaint with the project is really traffic along a street that runs from Westwood through Canton to 128, not the sewer work, which the town actually didn't object to. In addition, the town argued the 30-day period really only starts when the state approves whatever it is it's really opposed to, in this case, changes to Dedham Street.
The court however, said state law specifically states the 30-day period starts when a permit is issued for any part of a project and that, basically, tough titty, the fact that the state failed to notify the town of the sewer permit is not its concern because Canton knew the project was coming and that the state was considering granting approval and that if nothing else, it could have asked state officials to let the town know when the sewer permit was coming up, which apparently it didn't.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Westwood Station
This is the kind of reporting you'll never see in the Globe Business section or in the WSJ.
That said, what Westwood Station?
I haven't seen much of anything going on for about a year (maybe more). Legacy Place was able to move things along and beat them to the punch, and now I would have to guess they're probably looking at Elmway Farms up the road and rethinking things, at least for now. (What is it with Norwood, anyway? They seem to have a knack for putting in retail developments that fail repeatedly or never get a tenant.)
You don't see anything
You don't see anything because lawsuits tied them down until after financing became impossible. Legacy Place slipped though just in time, and is now doing quite well.
Let's not forget the pleasant little diversion ...
Of state Rep. Angelo Scaccia, D-Who?, attempting to block a liquor license for the planned Wegmans, because he's best buds with the Roche family.
Actually, Scaccia's my rep; that was the first time I could remember him being mentioned in a news story.
blocking the liquor license
Adam I also think blocking that license was the right thing to do. It wasn't all because they were friends. The Roche family is friends of everyone. Fantastic company that has done a lot for cities and towns in MA.
Question and comment
Why is blocking a Wegmans liquor license the right thing to do? I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I'm here for an argument (that's down the hall). I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, given that we almost never shop at the Westwood Roche Bros. and are not eagerly awaiting a Wegmans there.
Which brings me to the comment: Scaccia is my state rep. Why was he getting involved in a liquor license dispute two towns over? Imagine if whoever Westwood's state rep is tried to block somebody from getting a liquor license in Hyde Park. It'd be equally ludicrous.
I think it was the right thing to do,
because Scaccia stood up for a local MA business that may have been effected by an out of state company coming into MA. I also think it had more to do with him just being friends with the Roches. This is a company that has literally given millions of dollars to cities, towns and groups that needed it. Although I have heard people accuse him of getting kickbacks, I give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
Him being from Hyde Park doesn't really matter I don't think either though. Its a local company with stores in different places.
Now that I look at it though, the situation was tough all around. I think the state should hear special cases for stores that want to obtain more than 3 licenses. Giving one to Wegmans would have hurt Roche Bros. Then again, Roche Bros could have applied for a licesne in westwood too if they wanted.
A lot of this had to do with possibly changing Ch. 138 ( the statute that deals with state liquor laws). It needs a change in many areas and I think many in the state legislature were trying to possibly make a move on it.
Although I have heard people
Benefit of the doubt? I know for a fact that Scaccia has a special arrangement where Roche's people carry his groceries out to his car for him whenever he shops there.
I am really glad I was not drinking anything when I read that
That is all.
Were you drinking anything when you wrote that
original article?
The one about the court decision?
No, why.
And by "drinking" above, I meant something like soda or coffee, not hard stuff. I don't drink on the job anymore :-).
Just kidding.
It's just that you don't get concise synopses like "tough titty" in the mainstream business news media.
Oh, yeah, that
Hey, as I was telling Bouchard, when the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court accuse an entire town of trying to make "a mockery" of the court, you know what they're really thinking (in any case, at least I took the phrase "chicken choking" out of the headline on the post about the guy charged with, among other things, openly fondling himself on a couple of T buses).