Procedural snag delays hearings on hospital site
Published on November 15th, 2000
STONEHAM, MA - It was the meeting that almost was. While all parties were present and accounted for on Wednesday, the joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board never really got off the ground due to a technicality.
The long-awaited site plan and special permit public hearings for the former Boston Regional Medical Center on Woodland Road were continued to Nov. 29 following discussion on procedure.
The petitioner, Fellsway Development, LLC of Burlington, is seeking special permits and site plan approval for construction of three office buildings and a parking facility. In addition, the plan calls for converting the hospital building to a general administrative office building, while leaving the Medical Arts and Medical Office buildings zoned for medical use.
In June, Town Meeting approved three articles calling for amendments to the Town Code to allow zoning changes for the property. But the Attorney General's Office rejected the action, charging that the town did not follow procedure when it posted the warrant late. In this case, the actual, formal stamping of the warrant by the Town Clerk fell short of the 14 day window by just a matter of hours.
So the warrant articles were presented again at the October Special Town Meeting, and again they passed. While no formal approval has yet been received, a letter from the AG, read by Planning Board Chairman August Niewenhous on Nov. 8, indicated that once the information was resubmitted according to procedure, "you (the town) can anticipate our (AG's) approval."
But that assurance was not enough for Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello who objected to his board violating a board policy that requires all approvals to be obtained prior to voting on any site plans. To continue with the hearing, he asserted, would be in direct violation of policy.
"I feel very, very strongly that if we set a policy, we should abide by the policy...If the board does not feel that strongly, then we should change our policies," Ciccarello said.
Selectman opinion was split on whether or not to allow the hearing to continue. Selectman Darin Leahy agreed, in part, with Ciccarello, but stated that to delay the hearing would put a hardship on the petitioner.
Selectman Al Conti stated that he would be in favor of holding off the public hearing, but suggested taking advantage of all parties in attendance for an informational meeting regarding the petitions.
Attorney Charles Houghton, who represents the petitioner, said that delaying the hearing would delay the whole process and that the cost to the town, in the form of taxes that the property owner would eventually pay, would be in the area of $3,600 per day based on full occupancy.
"We've gone 50 years in lieu of taxes," Ciccarello rebutted, referring to the nonprofit hospital that previously occupied the lot.
Ciccarello's motion did not carry, with three out of five Selectmen voting to override the policy and continue the hearing without a formal approval.
However, the petitioner, aware that four out of five Selectmen need to approve the site plan, opted to continue the hearing until Nov. 29.
Houghton, in a separate interview, said that the process that led to Wednesday's action to continue the hearing was "procedurally defective." He explained that several meetings have been held regarding how to rezone and plan for this land with the petitioner working carefully with the members of the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board, as well as with Community Development Director Steve Sadwick.
The site plan and special permit hearings are to be held concurrently as required by bylaw. For a plan of this magnitude, Houghton said that the concurrent process was aimed at condensing the process and avoiding duplication.
According to Houghton, the Board of Appeals unanimously granted the necessary variances for the plan at a hearing on Oct. 26.
"The Board of Appeals was very pleased with our plan," he said. "They had good things to say (about the plan) ... A nice decision was filed."
Franklin Street resident and citizen advocate John DeGeorge expressed his exasperation with the proceedings, explaining that what happened on Wednesday night is exactly why he has been outspoken.
At no time, DeGeorge pointed out, did the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen or the Planning Board ask the public's input during Wednesday's dilemma. While the normal procedure would be to hold off public comment until after the petitioner and both boards had their say, DeGeorge said that the public is capable of expressing helpful input if only allowed.
Such situations could be avoided, he said, if discrepancies in the town's bylaws, rules and regulations were addressed. DeGeorge has been studying the town code and, while he does not fault elected officials for discrepancies in the code, he said that when such matters are pointed out, they are generally met with criticism and inaction.
"It upsets me that there are things wrong and we're not allowed to speak up," he said.
The public hearing on the site plan and special permits for the BRMC property was continued to Nov. 29 at 7:30.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!