South School on track, changing town government
Published on July 5th, 2000
STONEHAM, MA - South School: David Barks-dale, speaking for general contractor AMG, said the South School will be "substantially complete" by the third week in July.
Workers are installing insulation this week. Next week final programming of temperature controls will be completed.
The exterior work should be complete by the end of July, according to the Building Committee.
Flansburgh Associates, the architect, plans to make a final punch list walk-through on July 21. The punch list details little things — for example, adding a lock to a door or painting a handi-cap symbol on a designated parking spot.
The last real problem is the toilets. The toilets installed are too tall, according to building codes. The Building Commit-tee is working with AMG and Flansburgh to fix the problem.
The Building Committee continues to assure townspeople that the South School will open on time this fall.
oGovernment changes: Selectman Al Conti, in response to questions about Chairman Pat Jordan's expressed intent to alter the town government, said that all options should be explored.
In a public statement last week Jordan (on vacation this week) spoke of re-establishing Stoneham as a city with a council and a mayor.
"We have all felt, at one time or another, like giving it a shot, but there has been no detailed discussion yet," Conti said.
oSaia: The Tony's Tiles saga continues. The Board of Appeals is still deliberating.
The questions are 1)Is there a hardship? The board must identify a hardship to grant a variance. And 2) If a hardship exists, which variances make sense?
Saia's attorney, Steven Cicatelli, claims a hardship exists as a result of the shape topography and soil condition of the lot.
At the June 29 Board of Appeals meeting, member Robert Saltzman questioned whether a hardship existed.
Chairman Chuck DeCoste wanted time to digest all the material before voting. Issues to address, if a hardship is recognized, include location and height of a fence, parking spaces, and the existence of a loading dock.
The fence is too high and partially on town property, an existing loading dock was not on the approved plan and parking spaces are smaller and in a different layout than shown in the approved plan.
Cicatelli said the fence is necessary to prevent vandalism, the loading dock is just a door, and the existing parking layout is safer than the original scheme.
The Board of Appeals will vote on the matter on July 27.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!