Selectmen hopefuls in suit against town
Published on March 8th, 2006
STONEHAM, MA - Two Selectmen's race contenders joined eight other area residents as plaintiffs in litigation challenging the Zoning Board's September approval of the Langwood Commons housing project.
Newcomb Road residents and neighbors Andrew Celentano and Heidi Kelf, who have both announced their candidacy for the two-open seats on the Board of Selectmen at this April's election, are fighting the affordable housing project in the suit along with the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Fells, the City of Melrose, and the City of Medford.
Colorado-based Simpson Housing, LP, which proposed the 550-unit Chapter 40B development, is also named as a defendant in the litigation.
Specifically, the legal challenge requests that a Superior Court judge toss out the Zoning Board's authorization of the Boston Regional Medical Center redevelopment and declare that the town exceeded its authority in granting a comprehensive permit for the project.
"In conducting its public hearing on Simpson's application, the ZBA failed to adhere to statutory notice requirements and otherwise failed to adhere to the minimum requirements for holding public hearings," reads the litigation, which refers to at least one open-meeting law violation during the proceedings.
"Furthermore, the permit exceeds the authority of the ZBA, will result in a project that will cause irremediable damage to the environment, and is otherwise arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious," the suit adds.
Reached at her home on Tuesday, Kelf declined to comment on her role in the lawsuit, claiming that she would have to converse with her attorneys beforehand.
First saying that she didn't see her role in the litigation as a potential conflict-of-interest should she be elected to the Selectmen's office, the Newcomb Road resident then refused to speak further on the matter.
"I don't know if I have the liberty to talk about this. So before I say anything, I want to make sure what I can say," remarked Kelf, who didn't contact The Independent again before presstime.
According to Celentano, he also doesn't necessarily see any conflict-of-interest in serving on the Board of Selectmen while simultaneously challenging the town a court proceeding.
However, should Town Counsel Bill Solomon or the state's Ethic's Commission ever declare that his role in discussions on the BRMC redevelopment does constitute a conflict, Celentano wouldn't participate in the matter.
"I have nothing to gain by this. And I don't think there's a point where the vote [approving the 40B proposal] would come back for this project anyway. But if there was ever a conflict-of-interest, I would recuse myself from it," said Celentano.
"I would always make my decisions based upon the best interests of the town. And I want to do what's best for the town," said Celentano, when asked if he thought he could neutrally act on matters related to the project.
According to local attorney Charles Houghton, who represents the Burlington-based Gutierrez Company and Simpson Housing, LP, he doesn't see how the two Newcomb Road resident's role in the litigation could be seen as anything other than a conflict.
And with Selectman Tony Kennedy already abstaining from any discussions on the matter because of a potential conflict-of-interest, the board could see three of its five voting members unable to participate in discussions on the project - if both Kelf and Celentano were elected this April.
"It wouldn't do anything to this approval. But in the future, if something came up with the project, they certainly couldn't vote for it," Houghton commented.
"Usually in a situation like that [where you have three-of-five members unable to vote], there's a rule that allows some of them to vote. But that would certainly get interesting," the attorney added.
Claiming that he couldn't give an official legal opinion on the potential conflict-of-interests until the Board of Selectmen formally asked him for one, Town Counsel Bill Solomon did refer to a rule that allows all board members to act on matters where a majority of an elected body must abstain.
"If you have a board and a certain number of votes you need, and enough people have a conflict, you have this rule of necessity. It basically says that if enough people can't act, they can because otherwise government would come to a standstill," Solomon explained.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!