Appeals process runnning out for Sweetser House
Published on May 17th, 2000
STONEHAM, MA - Stoneham has pronounced the Sweetser House dead on numerous occasions only to see it rise again, but this week marks another in a long line of obituaries for the historic home.
The last Greek Revival home in Stoneham, built in 1842, was going to be destroyed last summer for parking space necessary at the new Maynard Moore site. But local developer Joe Cunningham agreed to give the home away to anyone who would pay to move it.
Richard Johnson of Arlington saw the Stoneham Historical Society's pleas for help. The Arlington builder has renovated several homes in his town, and he decided to take a crack at the Sweetser House.
Escalating moving costs almost killed the deal, but the home was carted en masse from Main Street to Johnson's property at 50-60 Franklin St last fall.
But this winter the Board of Appeals, responding to a new set of pleas from concerned neighbors, rejected Johnson's requests for necessary variances, and the house again looked doomed.
"Our neighborhood has been through enough," Jean Carlino of 7 Fuller St. told the board Feb. 17. Referring to the municipal lot, she said, "I don't want a parking lot on each side of my house.
Then Johnson came up with another plan, plan B, or whatever letter he's on now. Historical Society activist Bee Russo said at the time that she still hoped for "a compromise."
But on May 10 the Planning Board denied Johnson's request to go back to the Board of Appeals with a revised plan.
On Feb. 17 the Board of Appeals had denied Johnson's request for 14 necessary variances with a four to one vote.
At the time Johnson proposed to place the home between the two existing 18-unit apartment buildings on his 52,400 square foot property, demarcated as 50 and 60 Franklin St. Additional parking would have been created behind the buildings. Johnson's plan was to use the Sweetser House as three two-bedroom units.
There would have been 23 feet between the Sweetser House and each of the apartment buildings and around 30 fewer parking spaces than zoning requires. The Board of Appeals said no.
Under Massachusetts law a party cannot bring a denied variance request back to an appeals board within two years without the consent of all but one member of the Planning Board. To allow the petitioner back before the Board of Appeals the Planning Board members must decide whether the new plan has specific and material changes from the original proposal.
The revised plan called for landscaping to the rear of the buildings with no additional parking, removal of a single story section off the back of the house, and using the space as three one-bedroom units.
The entire Planning Board agreed that the changes were "specific."
Planning Board member Frank Federico argued that Johnson should be able to go back to the Board of Appeals.
But two of the five Planning Board members, Stephen Catalano and Kevin Dolan, did not agree that the changes were "material."
"There are the same number of units," Catalano said.
Planning Board Chairman August Niewenhous abstained from voting, but he summarized the position of the majority in a later statement:
"The Board of Appeals made it clear that any change in density was a problem; therefore, the (Planning) Board felt the revisions were not material."
According to Johnson's attorney, Steven Cicatelli, going back to the Board of Appeals becomes an option for Johnson two years from Feb. 17, 2000, but his storage permit for the Sweetser House runs out in five months.
Johnson could appeal the Planning Board's decision to Land Court or Superior Court.
Or else, the Sweetser House may finally be history in the most permanent sense.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!