Mann Chemical fuels debate
Published on May 12th, 1999
STONEHAM MA- It is a topic that always seems to incite emotion and at Thursday's Special Town Meeting, the former Mann Chemical Company property once again set off extensive debate.
Article 8 on the Town Meeting warrant called for authorizing the Board of Selectmen to accept a parcel of land either as a gift or by grant of an easement on behalf of the School Committee.
The land in question is a seven foot strip at 103-106 Central Street, running between the Middle School and the former Mann Chemical site.
For years, this property was home to a number of manufacturing operations including a tannery and chemical company. When George T. Mann sold his building, which was then razed, an extensive clean-up effort was undertaken to address contamination found in the soil and ground water.
Subsequent testing of the site by the Mann, the school department and the new property owner yielded Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) findings that, reportedly, no significant risk remained.
Following a lengthy approval process to construct an office building on the site, and in light of the school department's own interest in the property, which abuts the campus of the Middle School and future new Central School, the new property owner, KLKM, LLC, agreed to donate this strip of land to the School Committee for 49 additional Middle School parking spaces.
According to School Building Committee Vice Chairman Ron Fiore, the construction plans for the new Central School have already been approved for state funding and do not incorporate this property.
The donated land will, however, allow for additional green space to be preserved between the two schools and overall enhance the site, in addition to expanding parking, according to Fiore.
"The land will be used as parking either way - by the school or by the office building," he said.
In response to an audience member's concern, Town Administrator Jeffrey Nutting assured voters that the offer was made during the property owner's site plan approval process, without regard to receiving something in return.
"There is no quid pro quo at all," he said.
With regard to potential liability issues for the town in accepting the property as an easement, Town Counsel William Solomon presented attorney Don Cooper from the firm of Hutchins, Wheeler & Dittmar to offer a legal opinion on any potential liability for the town in accepting the easement.
Specifically, Cooper explained that he had been asked to look at the details of the issues surrounding the property and to identify any legal risk that could possibly result from the town making use of the property.
"I think the School Committee is proceeding as if the property is clean enough," for the intended parking use, he said. "In broad brush, I think the School Committee is right."
He pointed out that the site has been cleaned according to state clean-up law and audited by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which, he reiterated, found no significant risk.
"The DEP is satisfied," he said.
However, Cooper stated that, from his standpoint, a small legal risk does exist for the town with regard to liability if it was found that residual contamination of the property existed or if a down gradient property owner claimed damages to his property.
With regard to this small risk, the town's defense, however, is substantial, he said, particularly in light of change in the state's clean-up laws. The Brownfield law, which passed last year, provides protection in such instances and, according to Cooper, was established to encourage occupancy of sites such as the former Mann parcel.
"You're being asked to make a cost benefit analysis," he said, in weighing the small risk of liability due to prior contamination of the site against the benefit of obtaining free land that would improve the school site.
"The town is within its rights to go with the determination made and approved by the state," said Cooper.
Solomon added that accepting the land by easement rather than taking ownership of it, provides another level of protection to the town from legal action.
As expected, strong opposition to the article ensued concerning potential risk of residual contamination at the site.
Beacon Street resident Glynnis Bruno, who has long opposed any use by the town on or near this site, reminded voters that previous attempts to take over the former Mann property had been rejected.
"What part of 'no' don't they understand?"
She also asserted that vinyl chloride, which had been found on the site previously, is known to cause tumors and cancer.
"No one can see vapors...They come up from the ground, even asphalt..With all that we know, why do we need to take the risk?" she asked.
While the rebuilding project for the new Central School already includes adequate parking without use of this land, Bruno asked why this additional parking area was so important. Her concern, she added, was for the teachers, janitors and coaches, among potential others, who will likely be parking on the property daily.
"I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this...Let your conscience be your guide. We don't need it."
Spring Street resident Kathleen Sullivan advised that the DEP, despite having approved the clean-up, has stipulated that, because of the previous contamination, the land could not be used for any type of residence.
"The DEP said the land is not suitable for housing. That means it's not clean...Cancer to me is not worth a parking space."
School Building Chairman Dan Hogan once again found himself defending his committee's stance with regard to the issue, which, he said, has been rehashed for years.
"Do you think any of the School Building Committee (SBC) members would go forward with this if there was a question?" he challenged.
"The reports indicate it is suitable for what we want to do," he said.
But SBC member Matthew Kilty stated that his has been the minority position among his fellow committee members.
"I for one was never in favor of taking this property. I'm concerned about potential risks there and I urge you to vote against (the article)," he said.
School Committee Chairman Jeanne Craigie brought to the voters' attention that the strip of land in question has for years fallen on the school side of the fence that divides the two properties. In addition, she stated that the land will be filled and graded and assured voters that no children will be allowed to play there.
"This site will be built with or without this (additional) parking," she said.
Attorney Charles Houghton, who represents KLKM, LLC, explained that during the approval process for the owner's plan for a four- story office building on the site, it was evident that it made sense to make the land offer to the School Committee, since it had expressed interest in the property.
"There is no benefit to him (the property owner)...He can still build his building," Houghton stated.
The article secured the required majority vote of approval.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!