Page 2 THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FriDAy, FEbrUAry 14, 2025 DOG PARK | FROM PAGE 1 pervious paved sports courts and to create an improved recreational area for families and dogs fell within the scope of uses allowed by the restriction. “Under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 45 Section 14, a town may acquire land by gift or purchase for the purpose of a public playground or recreation center, and may conduct and promote recreation, play, sport, and physical education on such land,” Vasapolli wrote Lawn and Yard Care SNOW PLOWING *REASONABLE RATES * PROMPT SERVICE * PARKING LOTS USA 781-521-9927 Lawrence A. Simeone Jr. Attorney-at-Law ~ Since 1989 ~ * Corporate Litigation * Criminal/Civil * MCAD * Zoning/Land Court * Wetlands Litigation * Workmen’s Compensation * Landlord/Tenant Litigation * Real Estate Law * Construction Litigation * Tax Lien * Personal Injury * Bankruptcy * Wrongful Death * Zoning/Permitting Litigation 300 Broadway, Suite 1, Revere * 781-286-1560 lsimeonejr@simeonelaw.net in his opinion. “The acquisition of Stocker Playground was done in accordance with this statute. As such, the proposed use of Stocker Playground for a dog park or dog playground is clearly a form of recreation and play, which is authorized by this statute for property gifted to the town for playground purposes.” Vasapolli also concluded in his opinion requested by the Dog Park Committee that the proposal to replace existing, seldom used sports courts with a dog park doesn’t trigger Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, an amendment that protects public open spaces. “The current proposal would make improvements to Stocker Playground, but it would remain a public recreational space, and the public’s access to it will not be altered or changed,” Vasapolli wrote. “After the work to upgrade the park is completed, Stocker Playground will be open to all members of the public, just as it is today.” Town Meeting member cites legal problems Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member Mark V. Sacco Jr., who has advocated on behalf of abutters and residents who live near Stocker Playground who opposed the dog park, wrote a letter to the Conservation Commission urging members to delay their vote. “Stocker Playground is protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting and state legislative approval before any change in use can occur,” Sacco wrote in his letter to the Conservation Commission. “No such Town Meeting vote has taken place, meaning that this proposal is being pushed forward without fulfi lling a critical legal requirement,” Sacco wrote. “Furthermore, the deed for Stocker Playground, dating back to April 1, 1930, explicitly designates the land for use as a playground in perpetuity. A playground is defi ned as an open space intended for children’s recreational activities,” he wrote. “The introduction of a dog park—a fenced-in facility with specialized infrastructure—fundamentally alters this intended use. A dog park is not an open space for general recreation; it is a structured facility designed for a specifi c purpose, distinct from the broad, public recreational use intended when the land was dedicated as a playground,” Sacco continued in his letter to the Conservation Commission. “By proceeding without the required two-thirds Town Meeting vote, the administration is not only sidestepping legal obligations under Article 97 but also ignoring the original intent of the deed that has protected Stocker Playground for nearly a century. This sets a dangerous precedent for repurposing protected public lands without proper due process,” he wrote. “Given these serious legal and ethical concerns, I urge the Conservation Commission to take no further action on this proposal until the required Town Meeting vote has occurred. Allowing this process to move forward under the current circumstances would be an endorsement of an unlawful overreach by the administration. … The residents of Saugus deserve to know that their protected open spaces are being redefined without legal authority.” How the committee settled on Stocker Selectman Jeffrey Cicolini, who is also a member of the Dog Park Committee, said the legal opinion the committee sought from Town Counsel Vasapolli “was the fi nal step before we passed the results along to the Town Manager.” “As we concluded our work, we unanimously agreed that Stocker Park (Stocker) was the most suitable location that met the grant criteria. The main follow up item the committee found with Stocker was the registered deed restriction from 1930,” Cicolini said. “The committee reached out to Town Counsel for an offi cial opinion on whether or not a dog park could be located within Stocker’s boundaries. Town Counsel’s opinion was clear that 1) a dog park could be included and would not violate the deed restriction and 2) Article 97, that would require a Town Meeting vote, would not be a factor as it was not a change in use of Stocker as a whole,” he said. The committee found that Stocker Park is the one location in town that currently meets every one of the criteria of the Stanton Foundation grant, according to Cicolini. “The Dog Park Committee reviewed and researched many open space/ playground locations that could be suitable for a dog park to be located. Each location that was considered resulted in items for further review and investigation,” Cicolini said. “Several locations were eliminated as they didn’t meet the minimum size requirement for a dog park or because they DOG PARK | SEE PAGE 6 Call Driveways from $35
3 Publizr Home