Residents come out in force against proposed detox

By Jay Turner

A diverse group of abutters, nearby neighbors, concerned citizens, and town officials came out in full force at last Thursday’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to deliver a loud and clear message of opposition to a proposed substance abuse detoxification center at the site of the Bay State School of Technology located at 225 Turnpike Street.

More than 50 people in all packed into the Salah Meeting Room for the March 22 hearing, which had generated considerable advance buzz after the topic gained traction on social media. At issue was a prior determination by Building Commissioner Ed Walsh that the facility in question — a proposed 48-bed medically monitored inpatient detox (MMID) — did not meet the definition of a “nursing or convalescent home” as defined in the town’s zoning bylaws and therefore would not be a permitted use in a business zone. Attorneys for the proponent, Armando Petruzziello, filed a formal appeal of Walsh’s ruling arguing that the facility did in fact meet the aforementioned definitions, and the matter was referred to the ZBA for consideration and review.

Click the image to view the CCTV broadcast of the 3/22 ZBA hearing.

Early in the hearing, acting ZBA Chairman Greg Pando acknowledged the widespread interest in the case but made it clear that the board would not be rushed into a decision. “This is a very serious case and it’s going to take due deliberation and I certainly want to hear everyone and I want everyone’s input. But don’t think by any stretch of the imagination that a decision will be made this evening.”

True to Pando’s word, the board ultimately agreed to continue the hearing until May 10, but not before listening to more than 45 minutes of direct testimony on the matter.

The sole speaker in support of the applicant was one of Petruzziello’s attorneys, Gabriel Dym, who argued that the proposed facility has all of the features of a “nursing or convalescent home,” such as sleeping rooms and furnishing of meals and nursing care for hire. Furthermore, Dym said many of the phrases included in the bylaw are expressly defined in the state Department of Public Health regulations governing licensed MMID facilities. He also noted that in a prior case involving an assisted living facility on Revere Street, Walsh cited many of the same terms in finding that the project was consistent with the definition of a nursing or convalescent home.

Offering up a legal counter-argument, meanwhile, was Kelly Jordan-Price, an attorney retained by 19 abutting residents on Russell Street who share a host of concerns about the proposal.

Jordan-Price, herself a Canton resident, argued that a substance abuse detox has its own specific requirements under DPH regulations that appear nowhere in the town bylaws, including 24/7 medical supervision and medical services for opioid treatment. “These requirements transcend so far beyond the furnishing of lodging, meals and nursing care that are characteristic of the definition of a nursing or convalescent home,” she said.

She added that there is no relevant case law where a court has deemed a detox facility to be a nursing home, nor was there any effort to account for MMID facilities when the town last codified the bylaws in 2010. “Had the drafters of the bylaw wanted to include an MMID or detox facility within the definition of nursing or convalescent home, they could have and they would have,” she said.

In conclusion, Jordan-Price stressed that her clients “acknowledge and appreciate the severity of the opioid epidemic and the need for communities to provide appropriate treatment services to their residents.” At the same time, she said “careful consideration must be put into the selection of potential appropriate locations in the town and attempts to shoehorn these types of facilities into existing bylaw definitions that were not intended to cover these types of uses should be resisted.”

After hearing from both attorneys, the ZBA opened up the floor to resident comments, and the dozen or so who took the opportunity to speak all voiced strong opposition to the proposal, with concerns ranging from safety to traffic impacts to impacts on abutting property values.

One speaker, a resident of Bayberry Road, gave an impassioned speech in which she outlined her “deep concern” for the proposal while calling on the town to prioritize the needs of its residents over the desires of a single developer.

“Before we make a decision to approve this proposal, we need to consider the Canton community as a whole,” she said. “Our greatest responsibility should be to account for the safety and living standards of this great town. Let’s continue to keep Canton a place that is safe for us to raise our children, a community that will attract families, and a town that values quality of life for its residents.”

Krista Cafourek, a resident of Russell Street, offered up her perspective as a direct abutter to the site, noting that a detox in their backyard was “not in the plan,” nor in the bylaw, when she and her husband bought their home nine years ago.

“I have no problem with my kids playing outside while other people are visiting their ‘nana’ in a nursing home,” she said. “I have a problem with my children playing in my backyard, which is 100 feet from a building that is going to be dispensing methadone and other types of treatment that I’m not okay with.”

Another resident who spoke at the hearing, Bill Ryan, said he has witnessed the opioid epidemic firsthand through his job with the sheriff’s department and “nothing short of cell doors and a big giant fence with barbed wire” would make him feel comfortable with the security at a detox at that location. As an example, he said the Mass. Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center (MASAC) is located in the middle of a state forest in Plymouth and still faces challenges keeping patients contained within their facility.

Meg Kennedy, who works as a licensed alcohol and drug counselor, also voiced her opposition to an MMID facility at the proposed location. She suggested that the ZBA members speak to the Stoughton police about the Andrew House, a detox center that she said has been a source of strain on that community’s resources.

Other speakers at the hearing included Selectman Kevin Feeney, who recognized the need for community treatment centers but criticized the proposal in question as “poorly placed”; Michelle Ruxton, head of the Blue Hills Montessori School, who questioned the proximity of the proposed facility to various schools in the area; and Economic Development Committee Chairman Gene Manning, who urged the board, on behalf of the EDC and the Canton Association of Business and Industry, to uphold Walsh’s ruling while suggesting that such facilities consider locations away from the Route 138 corridor, which he described as the “gateway” to the Canton business community.

Following the remarks by the attorneys and residents, the ZBA members made a few brief comments but all agreed that they would need more time to deliberate.

“We have an awful lot of information to review, counsel on both sides have made compelling arguments, and this is not to be taken lightly,” said Pando.

ZBA member John McCourt came the closest to offering an opinion on the applicant’s appeal, voicing concern for the potential project impacts but acknowledging that he still needed to conduct more research. McCourt did say, however, that he was leaning in the direction of the residents and characterized MMID facilities as a “whole new concept” when viewed in comparison to nursing homes.

Regardless of how this particular appeal plays out, McCourt said the town still clearly has some work to do when it comes to the bylaw, not only for the protection of residents but for the treatment of those struggling with addiction. “I think that town meeting down the line has to deal with this,” he said, “and put these in areas that are less likely to affect neighborhoods but are in our community and will help the people [in need].”

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=38532