Proponents of detox back to ZBA with new appeal

By Jay Turner

Six months after being rejected by the ZBA in its bid to qualify as a nursing or convalescent home under the zoning bylaw, the proponents of a proposed 48-bed substance abuse detoxification facility on Turnpike Street have gone back to the zoning board — this time with a new legal argument and hopes of a more favorable ruling.

The controversial project, proposed on the campus of the Bay State School of Technology, has faced heavy resistance almost from the outset from numerous constituencies in the town — everyone from direct abutters worried about property values and security issues to local officials and other concerned citizens who have questioned the fit for such a facility at that particular location. The proponents of the project have countered that the facility would be professionally run, have minimal impacts on the surrounding properties, and address an important community need — namely opioid addiction — that has become both a state and national priority in recent years.

Appearing in front of the ZBA on November 1, Gabriel Dym, attorney for the applicant, clarified that the board’s prior ruling — that the proposed medically monitored inpatient detox (MMID) did not meet the definition of a “nursing or convalescent home” and therefore was not a permitted use under the bylaw — was still on appeal with the Massachusetts Land Court. However, the judge in the case, according to Dym, felt that the ZBA decision did not adequately address how the facility meshed with the definition of the other medical use referenced in the bylaw — that of a hospital — and suggested that the applicant seek further guidance on the issue at the local level. The matter was then referred to Building Commissioner Ed Walsh, who determined that an MMID was in fact distinct from a hospital, prompting the applicant to file a formal appeal with the zoning board.

ZBA Chairman Greg Pando, in further explaining the scope of the new hearing to the audience members in attendance, said they were revisiting the case based on what he characterized as a “technicality” arising from the Land Court proceedings. Nevertheless, he said the board would do its due diligence on the hospital issue and would carefully weigh of all of the facts in the case before rendering a decision, which is likely to come at a specially scheduled meeting on Thursday, December 20.

In brief presentation before the board at the November 1 hearing, Dym said it is the applicant’s position that the detox does meet the definition of a hospital and would contain the elements specified in the bylaw, including primary health services, laboratories, training facilities, and staff residences.

“The question isn’t whether, when we think about what a hospital is, whether an MMID facility is a hospital vernacularly,” he said. “The question is does it fit the definition of hospital in the bylaw? And my position is that it does.”

Pando, however, challenged Dym on that assertion, noting that at a previous hearing last March, Dym was asked specifically whether he considered the facility a hospital, and he responded that he did not. “You said that was not what was before the board that night, but you did not think that it could be considered a hospital,” said Pando. “So I guess my question is which of those statements do you believe to be true today?”

Pando also challenged Dym on whether the facility would offer outpatient services, which is a requirement for hospitals but has been a point of contention among the abutters. Dym said the facility would offer those services whereas Pando said they were previously told that the MMID would be “totally an inpatient facility.”

Kelly Jordan-Price, an attorney retained by 19 abutting residents on Russell Street, also spoke at the November 1 hearing and stated emphatically her position that the detox did not meet the definition of a hospital as defined in the bylaws in “at least five or six different ways.” Jordan-Price argued that the applicant was “myopically” focusing on a single definition of primary as “first in time or sequence” rather than what she claimed was the established medical definition referring to “basic, fundamental, or principal” care. She also argued that the applicant made a weak effort to show how the facility would contain the other required components of a hospital, such as labs and training facilities, which she said would have to be “integral parts” of the facility.

Jordan-Price, in her concluding remarks, reiterated that the Russell Street residents “understand the opioid epidemic going on” and that their opposition to the project was not meant to suggest that MMID facilities were not needed in Canton. “They absolutely are, but careful thought and process needs to be given to where these facilities are to be located, and they cannot be shoehorned into bylaw definitions that do not cover their use,” she said, drawing a loud applause from the residents in attendance.

On a related note, Pando reminded the audience that Town Planner Laura Smead has been working over the past several months on a draft of new zoning regulations specifically governing MMID facilities and their locations in Canton. While stressing that the draft regulations have “absolutely no bearing on this open case,” Pando said it indicates that the town has been “very responsive and responsible in addressing this serious problem that affects us all.” He noted that the Planning Board will hold hearings on the proposed regulations in advance of the next annual town meeting and urged residents to attend and offer their input.

Regarding the matter at hand, Pando said the board would review all of the materials provided from both sides and would reconvene at 7 p.m. on December 20 at Memorial Hall. The MMID appeal, he said, will be the lone item on the agenda for that evening.

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=45470