Jack Scott’s Notice of Claim Prepares Way for Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit

Norfolk developer Jack Scott’s long­standing threat to sue the town of Norfolk for civil rights damages over his troubles developing 34 acres off Rockwood Road is close to fruition, now that his lawyers have sent a notice of claim to the town and several other defendants.

The notice of claim in theory allows time for a dispute to be settled before it is filed in federal court as a lawsuit. But observers in this case don’t expect a settle­ment in the near future, and they expect the suit will be filed. The notice of claim is largely in the form of a 25-page formal complaint that could be filed as is in United States Dis­trict Court in Boston on behalf of Scott, his partner Robert J. Brown, and their company, Pine Creek Development Cor­poration. The complaint claims that the actions of the town of Norfolk and the Norfolk Conservation Commission “amounted to a de facto policy to prevent development of the Property” where Scott has been try­ing to build homes since 2000. Scott maintains that town officials overstepped their authority because they didn’t want to see the so-called Boy Scout property off Rockwood Road and Juniper Lane developed. The land was once held by a trust that allowed Boy Scouts to camp there. Neighbors have resisted develop­ment there.

“By intentionally and wrongfully de­laying action in using orders requested by Plaintiffs, and by attaching to such orders unfair and overly burdensome conditions, Defendants sought to prevent such devel­opment,

thereby unconstitutionally and unlawfully depriving Plaintiffs of the use and enjoyment of their property and caus­ing Plaintiffs substantial damages,” the complaint states. How substantial the complaint doesn’t say. It doesn’t ask for a set amount in damages. But the complaint does say that Scott and Brown “have suffered severe fi­nancial losses.”

“Scott and Brown lost other real es­tate through foreclosure, were forced to sell other real estate at a discount price, and were forced to refinance various properties, in order to fund the project,” the complaint states. “Meanwhile, Pine Creek lost an offer by a third party to pur­chase the entire Property for a price of $3,500,000.” The complaint names as defendants the town of Norfolk, the Norfolk Conser­vation Commission, former Conservation Commission members Jeff Kane and Jay Talerman, town conservation administra­tive assistant Marie Simpson, and Graves Engineering Inc., a Worcester firm that acted as an engineering consultant to the Conservation Commission on the proposed Pine Creek project. Scott’s development proposal has been before the Conserva­tion Commission for most of the past decade, as Scott has sought to build first 17 homes and more recently 14. Scott has filed various appeals in state court and with the state’s environmental agency, winning some and losing others. Scott claims the Conservation Commission and other town offi­cials intentionally delayed review of his applications to cost him money and made development impossible by requiring condi­tions he couldn’t meet. Almost all the defendants involved either declined com­ment or could not be reached this week. Norfolk’s town administrator, Jack Hathaway, declined com­ment on behalf of the town. Kane said he hadn’t seen the notice of claim yet and therefore declined comment. Simpson could not be reached for comment. Donald Graves, president of Graves Engi­neering, declined comment. Hathaway said the town has an insurer that will provide a law­yer

to defend the case. He said the insurer will determine whether the town will also defend the in­dividuals

named as defendants. That’s likely, since the defendants were either a town board member or a town employee at the time of the incidents.

Scott’s complaint targets Ta­lerman on several items, includ­ing for writing an order of condi­tions that Scott said he could not possibly comply with. The order of conditions would have required that no homes be built until after a wetlands replication area had undergone two growing seasons, which Scott says would effectively prevent him from getting financ­ing for construction. Talerman dismissed Scott’s claims in an interview late this week. “Jack’s newest complaint — newest in a long line of complaints — is plainly frivolous, purely retal­iatory, and a clear effort to harass volunteers and employees of the town of Norfolk,” Talerman said in an interview. “I’m grateful that the town has the courage to stand up to bullies, and it’s a shame that local volunteers have to put up with such inappropriate tactics.” Scott said he would have only one comment on his case, refer­ring to a statement Talerman made a few years ago suggesting that Scott might not ever file a long-threatened lawsuit against the town. “Jack’s a lot of talk,” Ta­lerman said at the time. “This is my talk,” Scott said, referring to his forthcoming law­suit. The complaint alleges both civil rights violations and other infractions known as torts.

Scott’s lawyer, I. Aaron Cohen, of the Boston law firm Zimble & Brettler, wrote in a letter dated February 16 that he plans “to pur­sue

our clients’ claims in stages,” filing the civil rights claims “in the very near future” and then filing other claims in the case “at the appropriate time,” after a court-mandated waiting period.