Zoning bylaw scrutinized by town boards
Published on April 1st, 1998
STONEHAM, MA - Stoneham residents told the Planning Board, loudly and clearly, last Wednesday night, that they were not in favor of the addition of a professional office zone to the town's zoning bylaw and the Planning Board listened. With an unfavorable action vote from the Planning Board, articles 5 and 6 will appear on the Town Warrant.
The two articles have been the subject of much debate in recent weeks. Article 5 spe-cifically calls for amending the town code by adding a professional office district to the books. The purpose of this district is to provide an area for professional office use by a physician, dentist, lawyer, architect, engineer or accountant.
Approval of Article 6 is dependent on the passage of the former, and calls for the re-zoning of the property at l88 Franklin Street, currently home to Temple Shir Tikvah, to a professional office use. Local dentist, Steven Migliorini is seeking to purchase and rezone that property from the existing residential A use in order to relocate his dental practice from 62 Montvale Avenue.
Migliorini's attorney, Charles Houghton, advised that the temple, as a residential A property, has "limited allowable uses," which include a school, daycare center, church or rehabilitation facility, each of which would generate significant traffic. Due to the size of the building, Houghton suggested that it was unlikely that the property would be used as a single family dwelling, also allowable under residential A zoning.
"Someone needs to decide a use for that building," Houghton suggested, and reminded the audience that the building is for sale and "will go for the highest price."
"We fee this is the most practical and best use for it," he stated.
Migliorini unsuccessfully petitioned to rezone the property at Town Meeting last Octo-ber. That article called for a change to business zone for the temple property and area residents were adamantly opposed, suggesting that the dental practice could close at any time - leaving the property zoned for business and available to many types of businesses allowed under that heading. This concern was largely responsible for unfavorable action recommended by the Planning Board at that time, despite Migliorini's agreement to a cove-nant that would restrict the future uses of the site.
Houghton explained that the current articles were an attempt to alleviate those concerns by limiting uses of the property. He stressed that the addition of a professional office zone was not an attempt to rezone an area of town or create a physical district. Instead, creation of a professional office zone was intended to allow an existing property to be moved into a zone which offered strict limitations for use.
"This bylaw may never have any other property zoned into it," suggested Houghton, who explained that nothing could be moved into the professional office zone without Town Meeting approval.
Attorney Stephen Cicatelli addressed the Planning Board on behalf of his clients, the temple's abutters. He said that this clients' opposition was due to the potential effects on their neighborhood as well as "on principle," stating that it was "hard to separate the arti-cles."
"This is spot zoning," Cicatelli asserted. Article 5 was being proposed now, according to Cicatelli, since "it is the only way to get the plan before you again because it was voted against at Town Meeting."
Cicatelli explained that the recodification process in l985 took the professional office use out of residential B and instead included it in the business zone, since it was deemed "inappropriate" to have a business zone directly abutting a residential A zone. This, he contended, was not done "haphazardly."
The capacity crowd voiced overwhelming opposition to the articles. Beacon Street resident Alexander Janko agreed with Cicatelli in calling the proposal "spot zoning." He stated that to allow such business encroachment into residential zones would be "poison-ous to our neighborhoods," and cited the Visiting Nurse Association on Beacon Street as an example of a business that has "totally destroyed" that residential area.
Peter Gilligan, of Oak Street, offered another example of a business zone encroaching on neighborhoods. In the l960's, according to Gilligan, a professional office building, at 6l Main Street, was opened. In time, the parking became insufficient and overflowed into the surrounding neighborhoods.
"The neighbors went through hell trying to get the attention of the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen," he stated, further suggesting that despite being called professional office buildings, "they aren't as innocuous as they seem."
Everett Street resident Kristen Russo called the existence of businesses in residential areas a safety issue, in that it would "bring strangers into our neighborhoods."
Randolph Road resident Al Scarpa voiced his concern over the potential spread of zone changes by saying, "If you start with one, it will mushroom into many."
Some residents voiced frustration over what they considered "revisiting" the issue. Rustic Road resident Lisa Sullivan called the articles a "backdoor way to get at the same thing."
"We've already talked about it and voted it down...can't we put an end to this once and for all?" she stated.
A plea from Gerald Road resident Kathy Dasho requested the Board to "uphold the (recodification) decision of l985," calling it "more than valid."
Mary McCarthy, of Windsor Road, was the only resident to speak in support of the ar-ticles. She agreed with the concerns of "preserving the integrity of the neighborhood," but offered that the other allowable uses for the temple property would subject the abutting neighborhoods to more traffic and congestion than Migliorini's proposal would.
With all that said, the Planning Board had a difficult decision to make. Despite his be-lief that the zoning article "on its own has merit," board member August Niewenhous recommended unfavorable action by the board since it was so "wrapped up with the companion article. In addition, he stated that although it "pained" him to see the peti-tioner without support, he agreed with concerns regarding "recycled uses" of the temple property.
On article 5, board members Frank Federico and Kevin Dolan voted in favor of a negative recommendation to Town Meeting while Niewenhous and Chairman Frank Vallarelli abstained.
On article 6, Federico and Dolan again voted in favor of the negative recommendation with Niewenhous, as acting chairman, abstaining. Due to a conflict of interest, Vallarelli excused himself from voting on this article.
On Monday night, the issue went before the Finance Board for its recommendation. Rustic Road resident Jeanne Avola advised the board that the two articles are "basically the same" as Migliorini's proposal that was defeated at October Town Meeting.
The difference this time, Avola stated, was that the effects of the two articles, if ap-proved, would be felt "town-wide."
With the various ongoing projects in town, including rebuilding the schools, develop-ment of a town common and parking area and Stoneham Square improvements, Avola stated that the encroachment of the business district onto residential neighborhoods would be "counterproductive" and would benefit only a "select group of professionals."
Finance Board Chairman Richard Gregorio suggested that the Board defer to the Planning Board's recommendation as it has done in the past on zoning articles.
"I don't see a significant financial impact," Gregorio stated regarding the effect of either of the two articles. He suggested that the issue was one with zoning implications rather than financial and, therefore, should be left up to the board with such expertise.
The board's vote for deferment was unanimous.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!