Claremont Continues to Threaten Lake Nippenicket; Plymouth County Waives Required Payment on Boston South Lease; The Estates General and NDCAP

Developers Try Again in Bridgewater; Propose Hotel in Hockomock Swamp ACEC, Proximate to Lake Nippenicket

(BRIDGEWATER) — Despite a rejection last winter from the Massachusetts Policy Act Office (MEPA), real estate developers Claremont Companies, LLC, are continuing in their years-long effort to develop the vicinity of Lake Nippenicket — a Great Pond and a prima facie public resource — in this instance, proposing a 110-room hotel on a parcel located within the Hockomock Swamp Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).

(Lake Nippenicket; photo credit — Jeremy Gillespie.)

The Bridgewater Planning Board will hear Claremont’s application for a special permit and site plan approval to build a Hilton Garden Inn at 0 Corporate Drive at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 19th, 2023, via Zoom; the agenda is here. Public comment may also be sent by email to CED@bridgewaterma.org, and must be received by noon on Tuesday, July 18th, 2023, to be considered for the public hearing.

Procedural History, Jan. 2023 MEPA Rejection

This is not the first attempt by development interests to build in this environmentally sensitive locale, located in the Hockomock Swamp Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), as well as in the vicinity of Lake Nippenicket, a 354-acre Great Pond in Bridgewater that is home to a noted warmwater fishery. According to MEPA, including abandoned projects, this is the 15th in a series of proposals by development interests for the area in question, beginning in October, 1983, and continuing through the present.¹

According to the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), “An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is a place in Massachusetts that receives special recognition because of the quality, uniqueness, and significance of its natural and cultural resources. Such an area is identified and nominated at the community level and is reviewed and designated by the state’s Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) administers the ACEC Program on behalf of the Secretary.”

(The southeastern portion of the Hockomock Swamp ACEC, including the site of the proposed hotel; credit — MA DCR.)

The DCR continues: “Designation of an ACEC increases environmental oversight by increasing state permitting standards through elevated performance standards and lowering thresholds for review.”²

Last winter, the MEPA, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office, ruled that Claremont’s proposal for a massive development in the same vicinity did not sufficiently comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L. c. 30, sections 61-62L). In MEPA’s January 30, 2023, ruling, the importance of the area’s ACEC designation was underscored:

“...[T]he entirety of the project site [referring to the Lakeshore Center Phase IV] is located within the Hockomock Swamp ACEC…. wetland resource areas included in the ACEC [are] significant to the protection of groundwater supply and public and private water supplies, the prevention of pollution, flood control, the prevention of storm damage, the protection of fisheries, and the protection of wildlife habitat,” the MEPA decision noted.

“The Hockomock Swamp is the largest vegetated freshwater wetland area in Massachusetts. Further description of the extensive system of surface waters, wetlands, floodplains, and high-yield aquifers included in the Hockomock Swamp ACEC includes Lake Nippenicket as one of these resources. The entirety of the project site is also mapped as a Zone II Approved Wellhead Protection Area by MassDEP,” continued the MEPA decision. (The Plymouth County Observer described the Hockomock Swamp’s significance in greater detail last January.)

For these reasons, MEPA rejected Claremont’s draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the project in a Jan. 30th, 2023, decision, ruling that the DEIR for the project “does not adequately and properly comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act … and with its implementing regulations….”³

The Plymouth County Observer covered the MEPA decision here.

Claremont and its Argument

It should be noted here that Claremont already owns a hotel quite literally across the street from the proposed project: the Residence Inn by Marriott Bridgewater Boston is located approximately 400 yards from the proposed Hilton Garden Inn and is owned by Claremont.

(The location of Claremont’s second proposed hotel, across the street from Claremont’s existing hotel, and inside the boundaries of the Hockomock Swamp ACEC; credit — Claremont Companies, LLC. )

In total, among its many assets, Claremont Companies owns nine existing hotels, located across the northeastern United States, including the Marriott in Bridgewater, and with one property in County Clare, Ireland. They are attempting to build two more, including the proposed Hilton in Bridgewater. Claremont is also engaged in building hundreds of residential, over-55 units at Colony Place in West Plymouth; the project has raised serious concerns regarding water supplies and infrastructure in West Plymouth.

Claremont, for its part, in materials submitted to the Bridgewater Planning Board, relies on the argument that a hotel development is a by-right use in the Planned Development Zoning district in which the parcel is located.

In a May 17th letter from Claremont to the Bridgewater Planning Board, Claremont argued that “the proposed hotel is a use allowed under the By-laws as a matter of right in a planned development, subject only to site plan review pursuant to § 9.4 of the By-laws.”

Claremont further averred that “the proposal to build a hotel on the site does not require a special permit because the site is within an approved planned development. The scope of the review by the Board should be limited to the site plan.”⁴

Claremont pointed to possible monetary benefits to the Town and the Commonwealth that it estimates will result from the project (I did not see an estimate of its own estimated profits from the project, though it is very possible I missed it).. In the short term, in terms of direct benefits, it projects $512,000 in state income taxes and $900,000 in state sales taxes during the construction period, and estimates that the Town of Bridgewater would receive approximately $200,000 in building permit fees. It estimates that once the hotel is operating, it would produce about $65,000 annually in state income taxes and $95,000 in state sales taxes.

Claremont also claims there will be indirect benefits via increases in local economic activity, for instance projecting an increase in $1,475,000 in local spending from hotel guests. ⁵

However, the assumption from Claremont seems to be that all of this spending would take place in and accrue to the Town of Bridgewater (“Due to approximately 150 nightly Hotel guests occupying the new building, local spending shall increase by nearly $1,475,000 annually for the town of Bridgewater”), and this seems hard to square with other facets of the project, such as its location at a highway interchange putting hotel guests within easy striking distance of major tourists centers like Boston, Plymouth, Cape Cod, and Providence. It seems likely that at least some, and probably a significant portion, of that local spending boost would occur in locations other than the Town of Bridgewater.

Citizen and Community Opposition

Citizens and community groups have rallied in opposition to Claremont’s hotel proposal. The Lake Nippenicket Action Focus Team (LNAFT; its website is lnaft.org), a grassroots coalition devoted to protecting Lake Nippenicket, expressed its opposition in a May 15, 2023 letter to the Bridgewater Planning Board.

Melissa Ramondetta, Coordinator of the Lake Nippenicket Action Focus Team, wrote on behalf of that organization in a May 15th, 2023, letter to the Bridgewater Planning Board, pointing to ecological, recreational, traffic and public safety, and hydrological concerns with the proposal.

The letter noted that though this hotel is being put forth as a stand-alone project, in actuality it is part of the larger Phase IV of Lakeshore Center that MEPA rejected last January.

“Claremont Hotel 2023 is being proposed to the Bridgewater Planning Board as a single entity, however, it is part of Phase IV of Lakeshore Center, a large-scale alteration of 155+ acres designated within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)/Hockomock Swamp and borders Lake Nippenicket, its streams, rivers, and hydrologically connected wetlands,” wrote Ms. Ramondetta.

There were significant problems with the proposal in terms of water resources, said Ms. Ramondetta:

“An additional 130 parking spaces will increase impervious surface and stormwater runoff to the sensitive wetlands nearby that are hydrologically connected to Lake Nippenicket, the Town River and ultimately the Taunton River. Parking and stormwater management structures are proposed for construction within the 100-foot wetland buffer zone. This land sits within the Town of Raynham Zone II Aquifer. For all these reasons, a heightened level of review is needed for this proposed project,” wrote Ms. Ramondetta.

“Bridgewater Master Plan’s Land Use Goals aim to provide clear, concise, and transparent zoning regulations to guide regulatory boards and landowners and to balance land use and development with environmental stewardship and social equity. LNAFT would argue that the proposed construction of the high impact Claremont Hotel Project does not serve the balance of land use with its destruction of acres of forested land, an archaeological site and the potential impacts to Lake Nippenicket, its surrounding streams, rivers and wetlands as well as the additional strain on Bridgewater’s overall infrastructure,” said Ms. Ramondetta.

“The hotel project will have adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and the Town’s natural resources. The special permit should not be considered,” she wrote.⁶

A cogent letter of opposition came from Erik Moore. Mr. Moore, who serves as Town Councilor for District 1 and as President of the Bridgewater Town Council, was very clear from the outset that the views in the letter were exclusively his own, as a private citizen; he spoke only for himself, he said, and did not speak for the Town Council, any of its members, or the Town of Bridgewater.

“I have significant concerns about this project's alignment with the intent and terms laid out in the Special Permit for the Planned Development District,” wrote Mr. Moore in his May 17, 2023, letter to the Bridgewater Planning Board.

“According to the agreements I was provided that outline our Town's conditions for the PDD [planned development district], there are limits in place for both water consumption and the percentage of that district that can be used for hotel/motel developments. As I understand it, the percentage limits were put in place to ensure the type of growth (commercial and office) required by the town to truly make the PDD beneficial to the town without overloading our infrastructure, per our zoning and master plan,” he said.

“We've seen almost no substantial development in that area that aligns with our original intention for the PDD. Instead, we've seen significant growth in residential and short term stay — which isn't at all what we intended for that area based on our zoning and our town's infrastructure capabilities,” wrote Mr. Moore.

“Simply put, our town's infrastructure, pdd zoning, and master plan don't support having another hotel in that location. Hotels require significant water and wastewater infrastructure, public safety infrastructure, police and fire response, traffic management, etc. I believe that approving that project creates a significant imbalance in where our town's scarce resources must go and seems to ignor[e] limits established in the PDD agreement. It should not be allowed to proceed as requested,” Mr. Moore wrote.⁷

Opponents argue that this litany of negative impacts associated with Claremont’s proposed hotel stand contrary to the express purpose of the Planned Development District (PDD), as laid out in the Bridgewater Zoning Ordinance at Section 9.4.1:

“The purpose of this Section is to allow the Town to regulate development of planned industrial parks in designated suitable areas so as to achieve significant revenue or employment benefits without adverse impacts on their neighborhoods or on the Town's natural resources.”⁸ (emphasis added)

All of the negative impacts listed by Mr. Moore and Ms. Ramondetta would in fact constitute “adverse impacts on their neighborhoods or on the Town’s natural resources,” they argue.

In addition to the July 19th meeting of the Bridgewater Planning Board on the proposal, Claremont filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) relating to the project which will be heard by the Bridgewater Conservation Commission on Thursday, July 27th, 2023.

As this publication has noted elsewhere, Great Ponds are prima facie res publicae — public things on the face of the facts. In New England, our political culture encourages the flourishing of civic freedom and happiness precisely through our longstanding recognition that it is the public, and the democratic governments of the several Towns, which do, and of right ought, have the ultimate say over public things — not well-heeled private economic interests.

The long-term well-being of the people of Bridgewater and the Commonwealth, and the continued recognition of extant environmental designations — and not private gain — should, in my view, be the primary consideration in this matter.

It is a question of res publicae, of public things, and all that they entail.

Plymouth County Waives Payment from Boston South on County Woodlot

[Correction: as corrected in the text, Mr. Serkey did not say that the initial payment of $200,000 from Boston South to Plymouth County was not made, rather that the progress payment of $150,000 due July 1, 2023 was not made. That inaccuracy is my own, and I apologize for the error. — Ben Cronin. ]

(PLYMOUTH) – With little warning to the inhabitants of their host community, the Town of Plymouth, the Plymouth County Commissioners on June 22, 2023, amended their lease of the County Woodlot to Quincy developers Boston South Real Estate and Development, LLC, waiving and extending a required July 1st progress payment — in the sum of $150,000 — from Boston South.

Boston South’s proposal for a horse track/casino was roundly rejected at the polls in the May, 2022, Plymouth Town election, by a margin of 88 to 12%. The Plymouth Select Board formally wrote to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in June, 2022, noting its opposition to any such proposal.

According to a June 27th, 2023, letter sent by Precinct Two Town Meeting Member Richard M. Serkey to Plymouth County Administrator Francis J. Basler, the County agreed not to require the $150,000 progress payment due July 1s, 2023, from Boston South. [CORRECTION: As originally published, this sentence incorrectly stated that it was the initial payment ($200,000) from Boston South that the County elected to waive and postpone, and incorrectly attributed this statement to Mr. Serkey; rather, it was the $150,000 progress payment that was waived and postponed, and the error was my own, not in Mr. Serkey’s original letter. I apologize to Mr. Serkey and the Readers for the error. — Ben Cronin.]

“The July 21, 2022 Ground Lease between the County and Boston South Real Estate and Development, LLC called for a progress payment by Boston South to the County of $150,000 by this coming Saturday, July 1, 2023,” wrote Mr. Serkey.

(The July 21st, 2022, meeting of the Plymouth County Commission; from left, Commissioner Sandra Wright, Commissioner Jared Valanzola, Executive Assistant Nancy O’Rourke, and County Treasurer Tom O’Brien; credit — J. Benjamin Cronin.)

“Interested citizens of Plymouth were anxious to learn whether or not Boston South would make that payment, given the widespread opposition by the townspeople of Plymouth to Boston South's proposed use of the Woodlot as a racetrack and/or a gambling casino,” Mr. Serkey said.

Mr. Serkey noted that on the 28th of June, “Town Meeting Member Patricia Adelmann forwarded to me an Amendment to the Ground Lease that was executed a week ago today, June 22, 2023, a copy of which is attached hereto, which, among other things, waives and postpones the July 1, 2023 payment.”

In his email to Ms. Adelmann, Mr. Basler gave the County’s explanation of the amendment to the lease.

“The reason for the amendment is that we have a lease with Verizon for the cell tower on the Woodlot. This tower is very important for Verizon customers to be able to get reception and the County has first responder emergency beacons on the Plymouth cell tower,” said Mr. Basler.

“The lease was ending June 30, 2023. In order to extend the cell tower lease with Verizon, we asked Boston South to approve for the tower to remain for two more years. This amendment gives permission from Boston South (the tenant that controls the property now) to allow Verizon to keep the tower until June 30, 2025. This way Verizon customers can continue to have reception and the beacons," wrote Mr. Basler.

Mr. Serkey noted that “I have not seen the 1994 Verizon lease or the 2016 amendment thereto, but I am at a loss to understand why the County would elect to smooth Boston South's plans by waiving and postponing the July 1, 2023 payment due from Boston South, instead of just deeming the Ground Lease to be considered terminated as of July 2, 2023 if Boston South failed to pay the July 1, 2023 payment.”

Mr. Serkey continued: “If I am missing something here, please let me know, but it appears to me that the County's Ground Lease Amendment with Boston South is further evidence of the fact that the County is tone deaf when it comes to the interests of Plymouth, its host community.”

These sentiments were not limited to the legislative branch of the Town of Plymouth. Selectman Kevin Canty expressed his view of the matter in a statement to The Plymouth County Observer:

“Given the significant legitimate public interest in Plymouth regarding the future of the Woodlot it is unfortunate the County Commissioners did not reach out to the Select Board to notify us about their discussion of the lease before taking it up so we could attend the meeting or express our opinions on the matter," said Selectman Canty.

The Plymouth County Observer contacted County Administrator Francis Basler seeking comment, but Mr. Basler was out of the office and did not reply before press time.

The Estates General and NDCAP

Readers, Friday was July 14th, 2023, Bastille Day. The French Revolution is one of the epochal events in world history, bringing questions of republicanism and democracy