ZBA agrees with Gilmore condo proposal
Published on January 28th, 1998
STONEHAM, MA - Gilmore Street residents are a step closer to ridding their neighborhood of what some have previously referred to as a "disgusting oil company building," after obtaining the necessary variance approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday night.
Charles Houghton, attorney for the property owner, Sarah Cincotta, presented the updated plan to the ZBA, which features a 32 foot x 8l foot building, housing six condominium units and l5 off-street parking spaces at 8 Gilmore Street, currently the home of Glenwood Oil Company.
Although the neighborhood is residentially zoned, the commercial oil company has been allowed since its existence dates back prior to zoning and is, therefore, protected under a grandfather clause. The proposal seeks to replace the commercial use with a residential B use, a multi-family dwelling, which Houghton has previously called a more compatible one.
Since the last appearance before the ZBA, the plan has had three parking spaces added to it, now yielding two spaces per unit with three visitor spaces. This, stated Houghton, has pleased the neighbors.
ZBA member Mark Shamon questioned the events since the petitioner's last appearance before the board, stating he thought the idea was to go back and reduce the plan to five units. Houghton stated that the 5-unit plan was looked at, but was determined that "it can't be built." According to Houghton, in order to "keep in line with what the neighborhood wants, it can't be five...it destroys the whole symmetry of the building." In addition, he said it "doesn't make economic sense."
Location of a drain pipe has been an issue all along and to that, Houghton reported that research into old records have illustrated the location of the pipe as previously documented by former Town Engineer Marty Markham in the l940's.
With ZBA member Matthew Kilty's assertion that lay-out does not assure location, Houghton responded that the "pipe is not a problem," and that it can be moved if necessary.
The alternative of moving the building was not, according to Houghton, a feasible one since the only option would be to move the building further back on the property. To this, the neighbors have clearly indicated their opposition since they want the parking in the back of the building, and this would not be possible if the building was moved.
The variances being sought included lot size, frontage, parking setback and open space requirements. Hardship, which must be proven for granting of variances, was described by Houghton as the unfeasibility of the lot to be converted into a 2-family house, given the financial impact of necessary improvements due to the oil company's existence, including environmental clean-up of oil.
"There is no more unique circumstance in Stoneham," stated Houghton. "Without the variances, this property will not be developed."
Gilmore Street resident Ron McCular, who has been vocal in his support of the plan at previous meetings, stated that there are many changes going on in Stoneham currently and "this change is another positive."
Not all abutters have given their full support to the proposal, however. Hersam Street resident Rudolf Reiss, who is listed on the Assessor's office abutters list, but whose status as such has been challenged by Houghton, has been vocal in his opposition to the plan, stating he saw no hardship argument in not being able to build five units.
"The petitioner has not changed the plan...Last time, I thought we had a compromise," he stated referring to the board's directive of the last meeting to try the plan with less units, in order to alleviate the impact on the congested neighborhood. He continued that "there are other ways to make the oil company disappear."
Houghton responded that any number of units over three would necessitate variances. He then continued his appeal to the board, stating that this project was unique since the neighborhood initiated action by going to the property owner requesting something be done with the property whose current use did not fit into the neighborhood.
"It is unusual for us to have this type of support," stated Houghton, reiterating that the project would have a "clear benefit to the town," and would "help out the neighborhood."
The board voted 4-l in favor of the variances, with Kilty in opposition.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!