Board of Appeals approves cell tower, roast beef sign, porch; Saia appeal continues
Published on August 2nd, 2000
STONEHAM, MA - Beheaded bicyclists and mystery antennas were among the subjects bandied about by the Board of Appeals last Thursday night.
At the July 27 meeting, the Board had to decide whether variances should be granted to Royal Roast Beef for a sign and Nextel Communications for a cell phone antenna. In the end both petitioners got what they wanted, but Frank Mitrano's absence for a family emergency kept the Tony's Tile appeal alive until next time.
Sitting at the table Thursday were Chairman Chuck DeCoste, Bob Saltzman, Paul Rotondi, Kevin McLaughlin and Harry Sampson, substituting for Frank Mitrano on the Nextel appeal.
Bicyclists beware!
The Stoneham sign bylaw says that signs must be in harmony with the neighborhood. The Board of Appeals is also charged with making sure their decisions do not create public safety hazards.
With these thoughts in mind the Board asked Royal Roast Beef owner Peter Belesis to raise his proposed six foot wide by four foot high sign at 475 Main St. from four feet off the ground to eight feet high at the base of the sign.
"I can see some soft bicyclist pedaling by thinking about having a sandwich and getting beheaded," said Board member Bob Saltzman.
Attorney Michael Pinelli, representing Belesis, said that his client had originally proposed a higher sign, but had lowered it per a previous Board's instructions.
"We've always done everything the Board wants, and if you want the sign at some middle range, that's fine," Pinelli said.
The problem with many longstanding appeals before the Board is that as new members come and go new petitioners are forced to react to changing interpretations of the same rules and laws.
On July 27 the Board asked if internal light was necessary for the sign. Pinelli said that the Board, in previous discussions, had come up with the idea of a five-month test period for internal lighting.
"If you rule for no internal lighting tonight, you are basically ruling against yourself," Pinelli said.
This statement may have been a bit of an exaggeration because several members were not on the Board for the previous decision, but Pinelli's point was respected by the Board. The trial period for internal lighting will stand.
Setbacks had been discussed at an earlier meeting, and with the height and light issues over and out, the variance was approved 4-0, based on a hardship identified in the shape and topography of Belesis' lot.
The Saia saga
Belesis and his sign are short-timers compared to Tony Saia and the ongoing Tony's Tile warehouse appeals. Saia's saga has run through two building inspectors, an almost complete turnover of the Board of Appeals and several generations of rabbits.
At the June 29 Board meeting members discussed the Saia case for more than an hour (the original appeal dates back to 1997) and decided to make a decision at the next meeting. At the next meeting, July 27, Mitrano's absence gave Saia the option of waiting for a full Board; a substitution cannot be made midstream. Saia's attorney Steven Cicatelli asked for a continuance. The next meeting is Aug. 31.
Nextel and the Case of the Hard to Find Hardship
Before the Board even began discussing the Nextel variance they asked about the highest, most visible antenna on Stonehill Towers building seven.
"Oh that's not ours. That's the owner's. He likes to talk to people on his two-way radio," said Chris McCarrier, Nextel project manager.
"Does he have a permit?" DeCoste asked.
"No. But he's going to get one," McCarrier said.
As Inspector Clouseau would say, "The mystery is solved."
Nextel Communications of Lexington wants to put a cell phone antenna on top of building number seven of the Stonehill Towers apartments on Stonehill Drive.
The rooftop, which is an advantageous spot because of its site line to Route 128, is too high already — it is above the maximum height requirement of Stoneham zoning. An antenna would go even higher. And to add to the nonconformity of a zoning violation, a variance is needed.
To grant a variance the Board of Appeals must recognize a hardship relating to the land or structure at issue.
Saltzman could not find a relevant hardship.
McCarrier said that a financial hardship resulted for Nextel because without a tower in the area, customers would lose calls, get upset and stop buying service.
The Board agreed with Saltzman that this hardship was not linked to the land or structure for which the variance was requested.
But Rotondi argued that a hardship related to the structure existed: He said 1) the logical place to put an antenna is on top of a building, 2) StoneHill Towers is within the overlay district the town created to allow cell phone towers, 3) Nextel cannot put the antenna in this logical, town-sanctioned location because the building exceeds the height requirement of current zoning, and 4) the building was built before the requirement was set and is grandfathered, so the petitioner did not create the hardship.
Rotondi concluded that the height of the building in excess of zoning rules was the hardship. DeCoste, Sampson and McLaughlin went along.
Saltzman disagreed, saying that the height was "the asset" that allowed Nextel to provide phone service.
The Board approved the variance to allow the antenna with a 4-1 vote.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!