‘Box Factory’ site plan approved by Selectmen
Published on February 28th, 2001
STONEHAM , MA - Selectmen approved a site plan on Feb. 27 for the old box factory contingent on owner Joe Cunningham kicking in cash for traffic studies and remediation.
How they got to “yes” warrants a closer look.
Tossed like a 100-pound weakling from a bar fight, the idea that something must be done to improve traffic on Gould Street flew from arguments last week about the site.
“We’ll do whatever it takes to work it out,” Cunningham told neighbors at the Feb. 27 site plan hearing for his 39 Pleasant St. property.
Cunningham, the chief of Cunningham Construction based on Pomeworth Street, has spent $1.2 million on the 32,613 square feet of property listed on Building Department maps as Stoneham lots 350, 353 and 354. This property boarders Oriental Court, Gould Street and Pleasant Street and contains a garage, two homes, the dominant building — the former box factory, now the YMCA run Strawberry Mill Daycare Center — and a playground for the daycare center.
The YMCA wants to stay. Cunningham wants approval to either expand the center or rent office space in the same building. This entails interior renovations, not expanding the footprint of the building.
But Gould Street neighbors are scared to pull out of their driveways because of the pick-up and drop-off traffic at the center. Parents come from Pleasant Street through the railroad right-of-way onto Gould Street and off to work. The Gould Street folks want traffic spit back out onto Pleasant Street.
“I was screamed at by a mother dropping off her child in the morning because I didn’t pull out of my driveway fast enough,” said Paula Trant of 7 Gould Street. “The business has a Pleasant Street address; it shouldn’t impact Gould Street.”
Other citizens are angry about the site plan approval process. They wonder why Cunningham is coming now after he has already built most of the structure.
State law exempts educational structures from site plan approval but requires a plan when other uses, including offices, are considered.
A variance granted last week to allow the daycare center to utilize offsite parking reignited what had already been a red-hot debate.
But a solution is now in sight with a meeting planned for March 7 between all parties and the Town’s traffic engineer.
The approval
Selectmen unanimously approved the site plan contingent on Cunningham paying up to $5,000 for a traffic study of the area including Gould, Pine and Pleasant Streets, not more than 25 percent of or $25,000 for remediation recommended by the study, and $10,000 to go into a dedicated fund to address traffic safety / enforcement issues over the next five years. The Town will pick the traffic engineer, but Cunningham can appeal the choice.
How the townspeople work together to solve this problem may affect residents of Gould Street, Oriental Court and Pleasant Street, as well as neighbors further east and west near possible offsite lots. And the resolution, if it works, could serve as a model for conflict resolution in neighborhoods throughout Stoneham because everyone was dancing in this melee: elected boards, appointed boards, town departments, the police, neighbors, a nonprofit organization and business owners.
Sparking debate
On Feb. 15 the Appeals Board granted Cunningham a variance to allow offsite parking for his property. The property is zoned commercial and lies outside Stoneham’s Central Business District, where such parking is usually not an option.
The variance was granted by a unanimous vote of the Appeals Board. Minutes of the Feb. 15 meeting indicate that the Appeals Board identified the shape of the lot as the hardship triggering eligibility for a variance. The variance was granted because, although using offsite parking to satisfy parking requirements is limited to property within the Central Business District under the Zoning Bylaw, Cunningham’s property was close enough — two hundred yards from Central Business.
“There is no derogation of the bylaw because of its proximity to the Central Business District,” Appeals Board member Paul Rotondi said.
Cunningham said that he just wanted to be treated like other businesses downtown.
But some people were worried that Cunningham wasn’t following the rules.
Criticism
Cameron Bain of Highland Avenue, Chairman of the Stoneham Bike Path Committee, said that he is worried about the future use of the railroad right-of-way running beside Cunningham’s property.
Staff and parents with children at the daycare center use the paved way as access into the site off Pleasant Street.
In 1995 and 1998, Town Meeting dedicated the railroad right-of-way for use as a “linear park,” or bike path. In 1999 the Town allowed Cunningham and abutting businesses, Lake Industries and Stoneham Towing, to pave the road and use it to access their property provided that the Town reserve all rights to the property.
Assistant Attorney General and Chief of the Mass Environmental Protection Division, James Milkey, came to Stoneham in March of 2000. In a letter to Stoneham Town Counsel Bill Solomon dated March 7, 2000, Milkey stated that the Town had not violated state law by allowing the dedicated land to be paved by the businesses because 1) the Town “secured a commitment from the businesses that they would not interfere with the development of the land as a bike path,” 2) paving causes “no negative impact on the intended use of the town property as a bike path” and 3) the town wasn’t ready to build the bike path.
However, Milkey also wrote that “it is apparent that both Town officials and the abutting owners understand that there is a general parking problem in the area that will have to be resolved through means other than through long term use of the right of way for parking.”
“My daughter was almost hit,” said Bill Frykberg of 10 Gould Street at the Feb. 27 meeting. In a letter to Town Administrator Jeff Nutting dated March 2, 2000, Frykberg supported the railroad right-of-way paving, but increased traffic from the daycare center changed his tune.
Cunningham agrees that traffic and parking are tough around the Pleasant Street, Gould Street and Oriental Court loop.
“The parking is an issue of enforcement,” Cunningham said more than once. He said traffic would flow through the narrow streets more easily if police cracked down on cars and trucks sitting in no parking zones along the streets.
“A ‘no right turn sign’ was put up... and has been moved so people can see it,” Cunningham added.
To questions about his plans to park on the railroad right of way, Cunningham responded, “That’s exactly why we asked for the variance, so we won’t park there.”
Cunningham has a letter from the Korean Seventh-day Adventist church on Spring Street, promising the use of 32 spaces. He is also speaking with St. Patrick Church officials about securing spaces in that lot.
Bain and Charles Street resident Bill Sullivan have problems with how and where the offsite parking was obtained.
“It’s just too big a project for the site,” Sullivan said.
Bain argued that even if the Appeals Board considers Cunningham’s property close enough to Central Business, the Korean church and St. Pat’s are nonconforming uses within a residential district. As privileged uses the churches have no right to grant “satellite” spaces to other commercial properties, Bain said.
He cited a case in Melrose in which the Melrose/Wakefield Hospital received a variance to use spaces in the Incarnation Church lot in a residential district of Melrose. Citizens appealed the decision and won.
But there was a key distinction between the Melrose mess and the Stoneham story, said Stoneham Building Inspector Gene Argiro.
“In Melrose they had another lot down the road,” Argiro said. “We don’t.”
Cunningham’s parking options — he needs 40 to 70 spaces ballpark — are offsite, on the railroad right-of-way, or demolishing homes on Oriental Court and accessing the site from the opposite side.
Sullivan said that he thinks the best option would be for Cunningham to tear down the two homes on Oriental Court and build a parking structure for the daycare center.
He said that he based his argument on the section of the Stoneham Zoning Bylaw requiring contiguous lots owned by the same person to be combined for the purposes of zoning.
Bain agreed and said that Cunningham had a chance to add parking to his property but instead decided to sell or rent parts of the three lots for profit.
“Any hardship he has is self-imposed,” Bain said.
Answering concerned citizens
Bain and Sullivan’s views open a debate about property rights.
Argiro said that he does not have the right to order someone to tear down existing buildings to create onsite parking.
“We’d end up in court if I did that,” Argiro said.
“I would sue,” Cunningham confirmed in a separate interview.
Also, Cunningham combined his three parcels for the site plan approval process. “This meets the intent of the bylaw,” Argiro said.
Bain was also critical of the box factory project because Cunningham was not held to “reasonable regulation” under the Zoning Bylaw, in Bain’s opinion.
Community Development Director Steve Sadwick said that the Inspectional Services Department was not ignorant of work being done at the box factory site.
“Inspections were done for all the permits,” Sadwick said. “We checked the fire-proofing and made sure there were no code violations, and the State had to sign off on the occupancy permit because it was for daycare.”
But Cunningham did break the rules. He started work on the offices without a site plan. Cunningham claims he didn’t know he needed a site plan. Regardless, when the Town told him that he did, he payed a $6,000 fine and filed a plan.
Sadwick admitted that Cunningham is often fined for jumping the gun, but added that he always pays promptly.
So now with everyone watching, the box factory may prove to be a great opportunity to do things the right way. The developer says he wants to do right by the community, and with this many ears, eyes and minds taking note, it will be hard to do otherwise.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!