FOOD TRUCK OWNER QUESTIONS PERMIT DENIAL LINKED TO NEIGHBOR DISPUTE
Questions Raised After Charlton Coalition Health Agent Denies Food Truck Permit Tied to Neighboring Farm
By Christopher Kelleher
A dispute involving a first-year local food truck business is raising questions about permitting standards, conflict-of-interest concerns, and the role of a regional health inspector who allegedly previously complained about the same property tied to the application.
Smashing Patties owner Nathaniel Lundstrom told the Brookfield Examiner that he applied for a mobile food permit to operate in East Brookfield while using Wildberry Acres Farm as part of his commissary and base-of-operation arrangement.
According to emails reviewed by the Examiner, Lundstrom was asked to provide additional documentation during the permitting process, including information related to water sourcing, wastewater disposal, inspections, and fire permitting.
Lundstrom stated that he complied with those requests, including obtaining a fire department permit related to the trailer’s hood suppression and ventilation system. He also stated that he paid the required $120.00 application fee to East Brookfield as part of the permitting process.
Despite that, Lundstrom said he ultimately received a brief email from regional health inspector Molly Tuller stating only:
“You are not eligible for permitting in East Brookfield.”
The email did not identify any specific regulation, code provision, or deficiency explaining why the application was denied.
The denial is drawing attention because Lundstrom says he has already received permits or approvals from neighboring communities including Brookfield, Brimfield, Southbridge, and is finalizing permitting in West Brookfield.
The Brookfield Examiner has previously reported on Brookfield’s strict permitting environment involving food operations and local businesses. As a result, Lundstrom’s approval in Brookfield is raising additional questions about the basis for East Brookfield’s determination that he was “not eligible” for permitting.
According to Lundstrom, the permitting process became more difficult after regional health inspector Molly Tuller learned that Wildberry Acres Farm would be used as the commissary location.
Lundstrom alleges that Tuller — the same official responsible for reviewing and determining the fate of his application — repeatedly encouraged him to find a different commissary or base of operation elsewhere, despite already obtaining approval from Brookfield to use the property.
Lundstrom stated that alternative locations in Worcester and Brookfield were suggested by Tuller during the process.
The matter is further complicated by emails reviewed by the Examiner showing that Molly Tuller had previously raised complaints involving Wildberry Acres Farm as a neighboring resident before later participating in permit decisions tied to the same property.
In an April 2 email, Brookfield Town Administrator Bob Ayers wrote that he had received a call from Tuller “concerned about her neighbor making food without a permit.”
Former Brookfield Board of Health Chair Christina Predella confirmed to the Brookfield Examiner that Molly Tuller had previously raised concerns with Brookfield officials regarding Wildberry Acres Farm in her capacity as a private citizen and neighboring resident.
Predella stated that she personally spoke with Tuller for approximately 20 to 30 minutes regarding the matter and explained that Brookfield had reviewed the operation under the town’s Right-to-Farm protections and determined the farm was operating compliantly.
According to Predella, she encouraged Tuller to attempt to resolve any remaining concerns directly with her neighbors, describing the owners of Wildberry Acres as “nice people.”
However, Wildberry Acres owner Lea Moreau later told the Brookfield Examiner that Tuller never ultimately reached out or attempted to discuss the concerns directly with the farm.
Predella previously wrote in an email reviewed by the Examiner that after discussions regarding the matter, Tuller “did not feel the need to move forward with any formal Board of Health discussion.”
Moreau further alleges that Tuller privately complained about the farm’s kitchen operations, driveway activity, lighting, and food-related use of the property. Moreau argues the situation now presents a conflict-of-interest concern because the same official later participated in permit decisions involving the property.
Lundstrom says the delayed appeal timeline is now impacting his business directly. According to emails reviewed by the Examiner, he was informed he could appeal the determination to the East Brookfield Board of Health at its next meeting scheduled for June 1.
However, Lundstrom stated that several planned East Brookfield events will occur before that date, forcing him to cancel appearances during what would have been his first operating season.
“This is my first year in business,” Lundstrom told the Examiner. “I’m just trying to sell burgers. I’m not looking for a fight.”
Lundstrom also stated that he had originally planned to pursue permitting in Sturbridge, but ultimately decided against it after learning that the same regional coalition oversees permitting there as well.
“I just don’t want to go through the same fight again,” he said.
When contacted by the Brookfield Examiner for comment regarding the denial, the permitting process, and questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest, Molly Tuller stated that she had “no comment.” When asked whether she wished to provide any clarification or response whatsoever regarding the matter, Tuller again stated “no,” and the call abruptly ended.
The Brookfield Examiner also contacted the Charlton Coalition for Public Health seeking clarification regarding the permitting process, conflict-of-interest policies, and the basis for the determination that Lundstrom was “not eligible” for permitting in East Brookfield. A response was not received prior to publication.