Southbridge Board of Health SITE ASSIGNMENT hearings


Summaries by date


Newspaper articles


Editorials

Could this have been stopped?

Site Assignment Process


Humor
The_Hearing_Process.htmlNEWSPAPER_ARTICLES_1_June.htmlEDITORIALS_6_June.htmlcould_this_have_been_stopped.htmlcould_this_have_been_stopped.htmlsite_assignment_process.htmlsite_assignment_process.htmlHUMOR.htmlshapeimage_3_link_0shapeimage_3_link_1shapeimage_3_link_2shapeimage_3_link_3shapeimage_3_link_4shapeimage_3_link_5shapeimage_3_link_6shapeimage_3_link_7
 

The operator of the Southbridge Landfill, Casella, applied to the Southbridge Board of Health for "Minor Modification to a Site Assignment".  They are required to do this because they wish to change the nature of the waste being disposed of at the landfill from construction and demolition waste to municipal solid waste.  The Board of Health, under 310 CMR 40 is required to hold hearings and judge whether this change could present any dangers to public health, safety and the environment.  If there are any potential dangers, the board of health must deny the modification.


A hearing officer was hired to govern the proceedings and make sure that they are run properly.  Because the Town of Sturbridge was not notified properly, Casella withdrew their application and submitted a new one.  The Hearing Officer decided that they could use all the information that they have already submitted, including the expert testimony that was already heard.  The Board of Health decided that the hearing would begin again on March 27th.

 

A little background

The Board of Health said YES - or did they?

Learn why 2 of the 3 YES votes may be invalid...

Will we appeal? YES!
on many points:
The validity of the board according to Southbridge Town Charter
Failure of the Board in following the Code of Massachusetts regulations. The closing arguments by Sturbridge and the 12 10-citizen groups represented by Kirstie Pecci (Proposed Decision.doc) were never given to the board.

...CLICK HERE TO LEARN MOREGrounds_for_appeal.htmlGrounds_for_appeal.htmlThe_hearing_process_page_files/Proposed%20Decision.docGrounds_for_appeal.htmlshapeimage_4_link_0shapeimage_4_link_1shapeimage_4_link_2shapeimage_4_link_3
How Citizens were involved   

Participants
Read quotes from your neighbors’ statements
Anyone who wanted to present evidence and/or make a statement (in writing or spoken) at the Hearing had time to do so.   60 people testified to the board with their personal concerns as participants - 59 were against the site assignment. 

Parties
Twenty 10-citizen groups registered to be a party.  Parties have to the right to present evidence as well as cross-examine witnesses. Updates/Entries/2008/6/23_Quotes.htmlUpdates/Entries/2008/6/23_Quotes.htmlshapeimage_5_link_0shapeimage_5_link_1