LEOMINSTER — Residents raised new concerns about the proposed Orchard Hill Park Drive apartment complex during a Sept. 9 Leominster Conservation Commission hearing, citing newly posted no trespassing signs, missing records, and a state-certified vernal pool on an adjacent parcel.
Although the applicant was not present at the meeting, Commission Chair Chuck Raymond explained that public comment would be accepted only on new issues not previously raised. He clarified that public concerns would be entered into the record and considered as the commission continues its review, in coordination with feedback from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).
Ethics concern addressed
Prior to the public hearing, Leominster’s Conservation Agent Jesse Averka addressed a concern that was first raised at the Commission’s August 12 meeting, when Harvard Street resident Bill Brady alleged a conflict of interest involving the developer’s consultant, Matt Marro. Brady claimed that because Marro previously served as Leominster’s conservation agent from 1992 to 2006, he may have worked on the same parcel and was therefore prohibited under state ethics law from participating in the current project.
In response to the concern, Marro contacted the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission and requested an advisory opinion. At the September 9 meeting, Averka reported that the ethics commission had reviewed Marro’s involvement and found no conflict of interest, and that Marro had voluntarily shared the confidential findings with both Averka and Chair Raymond. Averka emphasized that the advisory opinion was not subject to public release and that the commission itself has no authority to investigate ethics complaints, noting that any such allegations must be filed directly with the state.
Certified vernal pool raises credibility concerns
Haily Brady of 200 Harvard Street questioned Marro’s credibility, after she and several neighbors discovered and successfully documented a vernal pool on an adjacent parcel that has now been certified by the state.
“The fact that I was able to walk onto an adjacent parcel, have no idea what I was doing, and find enough evidence to certify the pool — that’s insanity,” Brady said. “It should call into question a lot of the statements made.”
Brady said two additional vernal pools are currently under review by the state. “It’s crazy that an expert wouldn’t know that’s there. They chose to ignore it — and that’s unfortunate,” she said, urging the commission to independently verify all environmental claims.
Susan Chalifoux-Zephir: questions raised over no trespassing signs and transparency
During the public hearing, Susan Chalifoux-Zephir, a Leominster city councilor at large and chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, questioned the developer’s decision to post no trespassing signs on the property and what that might indicate about the transparency of the process.
“There are so many questions raised by the folks who abut this land and have lived on it for a very long time. There are questions about the veracity of the material and the veracity of the wetlands delineation that have been raised over and over again,” Chalifoux-Zephir said. “And I find it interesting that the land owner, the developer has put up no trespass orders.”
Chalifoux-Zephir asked the commission whether it was common for a developer to post no trespassing signs during a project review, and if the commission had ever encountered that in other large projects.
“Have you ever run into a proponent that has had to put up no trespassing orders because they didn’t want the abutters to do any kind of evaluation or check on the veracity of the information that they’ve provided?” Chalifoux-Zephir asked.
Raymond responded by noting that the project was the largest he had encountered during his time on the commission. “I have been on the commission a little over five years, this is by far the biggest project that I’ve seen,” he said, noting that the last project of comparable size — the Target development — took place before his time.
Commission Vice-Chair Rich Golick confirmed that the Amarals had recently posted no trespassing signs, explaining that the decision was in response to reports of neighbors trespassing on the property. “Yeah, they had neighbor trespassing on the property,” he said.
Raymond added that while posting no trespassing signs does occur in some cases, it is “infrequent at best.”
Chalifoux-Zephir said she considered the timing and intent of the signs to be a “red flag.”
“That to me is a red flag. When I heard, I think at the last meeting, that the no trespassing signs had been put on recently — that was a red flag to me,” Chalifoux-Zephir said. “If they’re comfortable with the information and all the consulting and all the environmental review that they’ve had, I would think that they would invite the neighborhood, along with commission members who wanted to walk the property, just to be able to confirm that things are as they say.”
Bill Brady: order of conditions questions and missing records
Bill Brady, of 214 Harvard Street, said neighbors have been doing their own research and “hit a stonewall” trying to find the order of conditions for the earlier Target project tied to the parent parcel. “They don’t exist, allegedly,” he said, noting he had filed public records requests with the state and the city and was awaiting responses within the 10‑day window. “We just wanted to see if the historical following of the order of conditions were followed. The city doesn’t have them.”
Raymond then asked Averka to look into the records. Raymond said the conservation office has files but wasn’t sure how far back they go. Brady responded saying, “The planning office, you’re going to love this one, they had a planning director who cleaned the office out and shot away all plans.”
Averka responded, asking if that was in the early 2000s.
“When was that? Around early 2000s, right? 2003, 2004?” Averka asked Brady.
Brady said the missing records should have been filed with the Registry of Deeds.
“It encompassed all the original Target,” Brady said. “I went to the Registry of Deeds. That should be filed on the registrar and I quote, ‘I know where they’re supposed to be. They’re not here.’”
Raymond asked Brady if he reached out to the DEP, Brady said he had that “in the works.”
“Everywhere we look, we’re hitting blind spots,” Brady said.
Averka responded by saying he would “see if [he] can turn over any stones.”
Commission outlines limits and next steps
Raymond reiterated that the commission’s authority is limited to enforcing the state Wetlands Protection Act and that members are bound by its specific requirements.
“We as a commission cannot and will not judge a proposed project on whether or not we think it’s a good idea,” Raymond said. Later adding, “We can only judge a project on how well it meets the Wetlands Protection Act — and that’s it.”
Averka said the applicant had received comments from MassDEP the day prior and requested a continuance to the Sept. 23 meeting to allow time to respond. He confirmed that residents will have an opportunity to address the developer directly at that meeting, when both the applicant and consultant Matt Marro are expected to be present.
