ZBA decides against Nixon Lane development
Published on November 11th, 1998
STONEHAM, MA - The Zoning Board of Appeals ended discussion, on Thursday night, of a plan for a two-story commercial building on Main Street, that was contingent on the board's granting of a parking variance.
In a 4-1 decision, the board denied the variance request of Dale Halchak for construction of a 4,325 square foot building at the corner of Main Street and Nixon Lane, located directly across from Redstone Shopping Center. Due to space limitations, the plan calls for parking within the front setback.
Thursday's hearing had been continued from September.
Halchak's plan has involved several meetings with Nixon Lane residents who voiced grave concerns with the traffic impact at the foot of their street. The residents and petitioner agreed that the intersection at Main and Nixon was a difficult one as a result of work done by the state several years ago.
That section of Main Street is considered a state highway. According to Attorney Charles Houghton, who represented Halchak at the hearing, previous roadway updates, made by that state, resulted in the loss of some of Halchak's property at 104 Main Street. The work also left it very difficult for Nixon Lane traffic to exit onto Main Street or to access the southbound side of the road.
"This taking created a hardship," stated Houghton. "It cost us ten feet in depth," he stated.
To provide the site with adequate parking, a variance would be needed to allow spaces to be placed within the 20 foot setback. Without adequate parking, an alternative plan of the petitioner's, as described at an earlier meeting, called for a five-story building with parking underneath. Houghton stated then, however, that this alternate plan might not be in the best interest of the neighborhood.
Nixon Lane resident (Octavio Bassinisi) told the board on Thursday that, following the last meeting between Halchak and residents, an agreement had been reached.
"We're all in agreement with the new plan," Bassinisi said.
Some of the items agreed to by Halchak, at the request of residents, included building height not to exceed 28 feet; no deliveries before seven a.m. and after nine p.m.; a six foot high stockade fence at the rear and side of the property; a landscaped buffer between the property and the neighborhood; and no access to or from the property via Nixon Lane.
In addition to these agreements, Houghton stated that a curb cut permit from the state could be presented to the board, along with a letter from the Building Inspector regarding bylaw interpretation in order to supplement the variance request. The petitioner also had agreed to install traffic signals opposite his property's driveway.
Although tenancy had yet to be determined, possibilities included retail or food service on the first floor.
The board was concerned with what it regarded as inadequate parking and maneuvering space on site, along with the addition of the traffic signals, and it therefore could not be swayed by the aforementioned agreements and supplements to the request.
Board member Chuck DeCoste stated "I have a problem with traffic entering and exiting the property."
"It's just too big...It's trying to do too much in a little space," stated board member Matthew Kilty.
"I've said from day one that too much is going on," Board Chairman Lawrence Allen stated.
But board member Frank Mitrano stated that the petitioner should be given the chance to present the Building Inspector's letter regarding interpretation of the setback.
"In the spirit of fairness...we ought to give (the petitioner) the chance to get that...," he said.
Board member Mark Shamon was clear in his stance on the proposal.
"Obviously, I've been opposed from the start and remain opposed," stated Shamon, who added that he saw no substantial change in this plan compared to an earlier plan submitted for the property, as required by Stoneham bylaw.
Shamon called the current proposal a terrible plan with respect to traffic and maneuverability. "There's too much going on to handle the traffic."
The board voted to deny the variance.
The board also heard two other requests for variances on Thursday night and approved both.
In the case of Pine Street resident John Struthers, the ZBA unanimously granted a variance to his request for construction of an front entry way that would be in violation of the front setback requirement.
Stoneham bylaw requires a minimum front setback of 20 feet. Struthers' plan showed the proposed entry as 10 feet from the setback.
Dan Ornae, who represented Struthers at the hearing, advised the board that the home is greater than 100 years old and in need of repair.
"The current entry is a hazard," he said. "In some instances the mailman would not deliver the mail because of how the ice and snow collects on the stairs...It really is treacherous to go out there in the winter time."
Ornae described the plan as calling for a covered entry with a roof that would protect the it from the elements.
Lending support to his neighbor's cause was Pine Street resident John Sannella, who backed up Ornae's description of the entrance to 80 Pine Street, including the walkway, stairs, and landing.
"They are in need of repair," stated Sannella and told the board that he was in favor of the plan.
ZBA member Mark Shamon stated that new bylaw changes, recently approved at Town Meeting, address this particular issue. If the petitioner had waited another week before approaching the Building Inspector, the new bylaw changes would be in effect and would accommodate his plan without need for a variance.
The board's vote in favor was unanimous.
The board voted likewise in the hearing of Reading resident Vincent Fantasia who appeared before the ZBA looking for a variance for construction of a garage foundation on the corner of Spring and Marion Streets.
Fantasia's plan showed a single family home in the residence A district. The plan included a one-car garage located 10 feet from Spring Street, in violation of Stoneham bylaw which requires that no part of a building may be placed within 15' of street line.
Michael McCarthy, who represented Fantasia at the hearing, advised the board that Fantasia's situation was unique in that he had previously obtained approval from the Building Inspector to construct the garage.
From that initial approval, Fantasia then went to great expense to put the plan in motion, stated McCarthy. Upon return to the Building Inspector for a permit, Fantasia learned that the Building Inspector made a mistake and admitted that he should not have approved the initial plan due to its violation of the bylaw.
"Mr. Fantasia acted in good faith," stated McCarthy.
Moreover, McCarthy claimed that the condition of the land, consisting largely of ledge and slope, with a drainage culvert and pipe run through the property, dictated that the home and garage be built as illustrated in the plan.
"Mr. Fantasia is more or less a victim of circumstances," he added.
As required for any variance, the petitioner's hardship, stated McCarthy, was a substantial financial one. Fantasia, he added had already invested a large amount of money to build the home for his daughter. He would risk losing that investment if the variance was denied, according to McCarthy.
McCarthy stated that a beautiful single-family home would be built, and therefore no adverse impact would result on the neighborhood.
"He went through the proper channels...We're here for relief," stated McCarthy.
A letter from the Building Inspector, explaining the situation to the ZBA would be forthcoming, according to McCarthy.
Based on the argument presented, including the topography of the lot, the financial hardship created and the fact that the board considered that Fantasia had acted in good faith, the variance was approved.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!