Lakeville resident group calls for no vote on development plans; hazardous materials detailed

Robert Barboza

Published Mar 5, 2021 

LAKEVILLE — As town committees and boards inch closer towards anticipated approval votes on plans for the proposed redevelopment of the Lakeville Hospital campus as a warehouse or distribution center, resident opposition to the plans continues to grow.

At the March 4 continuation of the months-long public hearing on Rhino Capital LLC’s application for a special permit and other approvals for the development, a representative of the 300-plus members of the Lakeville Residents for Responsible Growth formally asked the Planning Board to deny the needed permit.

The corporation is proposing to tear down all seven existing buildings in the hospital complex and build a 402,500 square foot one-story building to be leased to one or two tenants. According to submitted plans, the new building would be 45 feet high, sited just over 400 feet from Main Street, and fringed with 128 loading docks for tractor trailer truck deliveries and shipments.

Group spokesman John Jenkins told members of the Planning Board that the proposed plans did not meet the basic criteria of the Development Opportunities District (DOD) zoning the town adopted in 2012.

The proposed distribution center “will have a detrimental effect both on the abutting residential neighborhoods, but more importantly, on all residents of Lakeville who travel in the area,” he said in a prepared statement given at the virtual meeting.

The proposed business operation “clearly creates a negative effect on the neighborhood,” in violation of the basic requirement of DOD zoning, Jenkins added.

“Listen to the residents of Lakeville who want a responsible project that will truly benefit our citizens and our community,” the statement concluded.  Many of those residents with concerns about the project tuned into the virtual meeting, which had over 120 participants tuning in via Facebook.

Jenkins credited Rhino Capital and its representatives with making a fine presentation of its redevelopment proposals, but suggested the project is essentially “a trucking terminal” that would not be the best use of the property.

He suggested a non-binding town-wide referendum vote on the plans be undertaken, expressing the resident group’s willingness to pay the costs of the special election held for that referendum if necessary. Planning Board Chair Mark Knox said that recommendation would be forwarded to selectmen for consideration.

Tyler Murphy, representative of the Boston-based investment and management firm which is buying the site, has repeatedly promised to be “a good neighbor” that would cause as little disruption as possible to the area. Earlier in the March 4 public hearing, he concluded his firm’s presentation on the plans by citing a long list of reasons why the town should approve the project.

His company’s lead engineer had just urged approval of the special permit for the development, suggesting the proposed operations would not be “noxious, harmful or hazardous” but rather “socially and economically desirable and will meet an existing or potential need” in the community, as called for in DOD guidelines.

Murphy said this third proposal for redevelopment of the long vacant property in recent decades was the town’s best option for removing existing environmental threats to the community, cleaning up and re-purposing a key site that has been vacant for 30 years, and preventing less desirable development such as a large scale, dense residential development that would strain schools and town services.

Murphy detailed the environmental issues at the site, which he estimated would cost about $10 million to clean up. Holes in windows and roofs of existing buildings are stirring up “massive amounts of friable asbestos” fallen from ceilings and sending the hazardous materials outdoors, he reported.

The state Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) has ordered all the buildings closed up, and prohibited any entry without hazardous material protective gear, he said. It is impossible to board up the buildings because of the widespread collapse of structural elements, including roofs, doors and windows, he noted.

The seven-story dormitory building, the largest on site, is structurally unsound and no one is allowed to enter, he also reported. DEP inspectors would not even go into the buildings because of unsafe conditions, he added.

Elsewhere, tests on the one-acre landfill site on the northeast portion of the property have shown high levels of lead, arsenic, and asbestos in the trash, appliances, medical waste, and building and demolition materials dumped there between the 1950s and 1970s. The thousands of yards of waste includes “vials and other hospital materials” whose contents cannot be identified, and could eventually leach into the surrounding soil and groundwater, Murphy said.

“A site like this requires some really hard decisions to be made... It’s a complex site, with complex issues,” Murphy concluded.

His firm’s proposal is “a clear path forward to resolve the existing blight and clean up the property,” he suggested.  “We really hope to become a part of this fantastic town.”

Many potential future neighbors took the opportunity to continue to raise objections to the plans, mostly based on noise and traffic issues.

Rush Pond Road resident John Ayers cited “traffic risks” posed by tractor trailers coming of [sic] I-495 onto two-lane Main Street, which abruptly narrows to one lane after the Rt. 79 intersection. Another risk would be big trucks leaving the facility and entering Main Street without the aid of a traffic light, he said.

Ayers accused town officials reviewing the plans while “ignoring that risk” in both cases. Planning Board member Barbara Mancovsky noted that part of Main Street is a state road, and MassDOT will be making determinations if road improvements will be needed.

Developers are estimating about 120 truck trips per day at the site, along with about 220 car visits. The total estimate of 682 vehicle trips per day is far less than previous development proposals for the site, Murphy noted.

Already in the works is a traffic light at the intersection of Bridge Street; House Bill #5248 as approved will earmark $2.5 million for traffic signals and improvements at that intersection, it was noted.

Noise concerns have been addressed by adjustments to the site plans over the past six months. A six to eight foot earthen berm will be installed along abutting residential properties and topped with an acoustical barrier fence to cut down on noise impacts for neighbors.

The remedial efforts should produce “more than a 40 percent reduction in the noise” heard by Rush Pond Road residents, Rhino engineer Brittany Gesner told the reviewers from the Planning Board, Board of Health, and Conservation Commission participating in the meeting.

Other town residents and officials criticized current property owner Derek Maksy for not participating in discussions of redevelopment issues, not complying with DEP orders to secure the buildings and prevent asbestos dust from escaping, and not start the promised clean-up of the landfill site.

At the end of the evening, the public hearing was continued for an eighth time, with the next 43D Review Committee meeting being set for March 18.