DEERFIELD — After months of contentious debate, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a special permit with conditions Wednesday night for the proposed development of a Dollar General store on Routes 5 and 10, at the intersection of Mill Village Road. However, other town boards have yet to weigh in on the proposal.
The ZBA’s vote followed roughly five hours of reviewing the 11-page draft decision of approval, a document that the board had previously requested Town Counsel Adam Costa to draw up for deliberation. Chair Bernie Sadoski, members Robert Decker III and Adam Sokoloski, and alternate Alex Herchendreder voted in favor of granting the permit; member John Stobierski voted against it.
The project has not yet received Planning Board approval, as the remanded site plan review was continued until June 7 at the board’s Jan. 11 meeting. The original site plan was rejected by the Planning Board in 2018.
Additionally, the state Department of Environmental Protection issued a Superseding Determination of Applicability, which may prompt additional filings before the Conservation Commission, according to Town Administrator Kayce Warren.
The majority of Wednesday’s meeting was spent reviewing the document as presented to the board.
“Much of it is procedural background,” Costa explained. “There’s a portion that’s comprised of findings of fact, and then of course there are the conditions of approval.”
The “findings of fact” addressed each of the six characteristics used by the ZBA to determine whether the benefits of the applicant’s project outweigh potential detriments. Those characteristics include the impacts on: social, economic and community needs; traffic flow and safety; neighborhood character and social structure; and the natural environment.
Stobierski took issue with several of the findings of fact, and questioned whether they were based solely on statements made by ZBA members or if Costa relied on evidence, too, when compiling them.
“The presumption is that board members, and it’s not always a safe presumption, are fulfilling their obligations as members of an elected board,” Costa responded. “On occasion, there will be specific citations in a finding of fact to a specific report — I think I’ve done that in a couple of instances — … but it certainly is a combination of those facts, as well as opinions of the board.”
In particular, Stobierski argued that in the first characteristic presented — social, economic or community needs that are served by the proposal — the findings were based on opinions, rather than fact.
“What is stated partially in here is opinion that I don’t think has ever been grounded in any facts before the board,” he said, noting the line that states the retail establishment will expand the offering of certain retail goods in South Deerfield. “I don’t think there’s been any evidence before the board that’s the case.”
His colleagues, however, did not feel the same — and a motion to negate or edit that portion of the document did not receive a second.
Stobierski also objected to the findings of fact in terms that related to the impact on traffic flow and safety. In particular, he took issue with the statement, “the board finds that traffic flow and safety will not be compromised by the project.”
“I think everybody agreed it would be compromised, but they’re willing to accept the compromise,” he said.
Again, Stobierski did not receive a second to his motion to instruct Costa to edit the document.
In one of the final characteristics, which pertained to the impacts on the natural environment, Stobierski requested the first line in the section, “No adverse environmental impacts are known, based on the record now before the board,” be stricken.
Chair Sadoski said the environmental issues, such as stormwater, were concerns to be dealt with by the Conservation Commission.
“They’re the professionals, and we need to treat that as such,” he said. “I leave it put to them to make the decisions on this.”
Sokoloski, however, agreed the phrase “no impacts” was strong, and that perhaps different language could be used, such as “no significant impacts,” or language that acknowledges those impacts will be mitigated by conditions of the permit.
“The way I read it, I understand where John’s coming from … and maybe Mr. Costa can clarify it,” Sokoloski said.
Ultimately, Sokoloski seconded a motion made by Stobierski to strike that first sentence, and the ZBA voted unanimously in support.
The ZBA also reviewed each of the 28 conditions of approval — many of which came from suggestions of the board, while others were “boiler plate” conditions that Costa incorporated.
Some of those conditions included: care and maintenance of fences on the property; standards for lighting and signs; and landscaping expectations. One condition that generated a discussion among board members was Condition 9, which required the completion of certain off-site improvements in the vicinity of the project. The board deliberated a timeline for when such improvements, including roadway and intersection improvements, be completed.
“I recognize that timing is subject to an approval process with (the Massachusetts Department of Transportation), and presumably a review by MassDOT, but in my experience, conditions of this support usually have a deadline, or are tied to a certain state or benchmark,” Costa explained.
A few deadlines were suggested, but ultimately the ZBA agreed that off-site improvements should be made prior to construction on the property.
The final conditions, which Costa included at the end of the document, were conditions he felt were vague or had enforceability issues. Of those, a condition that stipulated the applicant use solar panels was stricken; and language was added to make the others more specific.
Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne