A low hill dotted by white PVC vents; the capped Mechanic Street municipal landfill is a local landmark. Situated near Leominster’s two main highways and next to a major town thoroughfare, it’s in an undeniably desirable location with a lovely view of the valley and nearby Mount Wachusett. That’s almost certainly why there are large signs in front of it instructing interested business developers to call the mayor’s office; and indeed why Baystate Racing LLC, the Whitney Companies, and the city of Leominster are attempting to develop this 30 acre capped landfill into a horse track and sports bar (with online sports wagering), complete with major traffic infrastructure changes and an entirely new road. Much can and has been said about this proposal, but after researching the history of this site it’s clear that it is simply not suited for business development. The reason is that the Mechanic St landfill cannot be developed as proposed, due to the deed restrictions that were required by the state to cap it in the first place.

In 1997, Leominster received a grant from the state in the amount of $350,000 to be used for capping the closed municipal landfill. The Mechanic Street landfill was used for 100 years to dump municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, and a truly staggering (but ultimately unknown) amount of other toxic liquid and solid wastes from Leominster’s history of plastics and chemical manufacturing. The site was assessed by Superfund inspectors after Borden Chemical, once sued by the EPA for releasing vinyl chloride into the atmosphere, also admitted to dumping the volatile solvent trichloroethylene into the landfill. Groundwater testing showed unsafe levels of benzene as recently as this past September. All three chemicals are known carcinogens. As part of the conditions for receiving the capping grant, the City signed a deed restriction that “declared and dedicated [the Leominster municipal landfill] in perpetuity and exclusively for active and passive recreation and open space purposes.” In 2012, the statute was amended to add that the capped landfill could also be used in the development of renewable energy. Taken altogether, the deed restrictions for this property specify that it must be kept “in perpetuity and exclusively for active and passive recreation and open space purposes” or developed for the generation of renewable energy.

You may wonder how exactly the law defines these terms. “Active and passive recreation” and “open space” are obviously somewhat ambiguous, and could be used to describe anything from a city park to a golf course to an open field. An employee at the DEP’s Solid Waste Department confirmed just that, stating that the session act that established the landfill capping grant (Chapter 723, section 9H of the Acts of 1983) had not specifically defined them. They would in fact, have to study how those terms would be applied to a development application. “Semi-private horse track,” is certainly a stretch, but could be said to meet the letter of the law, if not the spirit. The site would be in the open air. The public could, theoretically, pursue recreation on it. The land under the deed restriction would be, technically, separate from the adjoining parcel containing the public road and permanent structures. “Maybe, technically” could be enough. It’s a slick little maneuver, certainly cooked up by Baystate’s land use attorneys and a city government desperate for cash flow. But would the DEP buy it? And, possibly more concerning: why is the land being actively advertised for development despite the deed restriction?

A survey of other capping grant recipients makes the situation even more perplexing. Of the 20 other municipalities who received landfill capping grants from the state from 1991 to 1999, seven are still being used as small municipal transfer stations or compost areas. Eight contain, or will contain, solar farms. Five remain open and actively monitored; low hills dotted with vents. Only one is being advertised for lease and business development: Leominster’s. This exception is possibly even more glaring if you look at the other eight cities who received $350,000, the highest amount awarded by the state: Braintree, Canton, Millbury, West Boylston, Worcester, Norton, Milford, and Holden. Five solar farms, two small transfer stations, one small compost facility…and one that’s trying to be developed into a horse track and sports bar (with online sports wagering).

It certainly seems as though the spirit of the deed restriction, understood and followed by so many other cities, is that the landfill must either be used for renewable energy or left generally undeveloped. The conditions of receiving the $350,000 capping grant are very clear: to preserve open space. The issue isn’t whether or not it’s possible to build on or develop a landfill; in fact, that argument is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. The real issue, the pertinent issue, is that this landfill cannot be developed as proposed, due to the deed restrictions required by the state to cap it in the first place. The deed restriction and amendment are public record. Pursuing this development will not only violate the restriction but violate the trust of the public and their confidence in city officials and the ability of state agencies to protect fragile areas of our community. It would also certainly open up the city to litigation from both the state and conservationists. While it’s understandable that certain parties see this development as economically advantageous to the city’s coffers, we cannot make such developments at the expense of the commitments already held. The land has already been spoken for – dedicated, in perpetuity, to open space. Put simply: it must be left alone.

Official documents and sources:

• 3059-381-Deed-Restriction
• CAPGRANT1999
• CAPGRANT- Statute-change-letter-leominster-9-21-12