State rejects Gutierrez office park proposal
Published on October 24th, 2001
STONEHAM, MA - The Office of Environmental Affairs ordered the Gutierrez Co. to lessen the impact of the Stoneham Executive Park project on roadways and parkland or reduce the size of the entire development.
Secretary of Environmental Affairs Bob Durand rejected Gutierrez’s draft environmental report on Oct. 15. In Durand’s rejection letter he cited concerns he shared with “hundreds of negative comment letters.” The rejection requires Gutierrez to file a supplemental draft environmental report if the company wants to build the project.
“We’re going forward,” said Gutierrez’s attorney Charlie Houghton. “We will evaluate the letter, respond to all the issues, and file (the supplemental draft).”
Many of the letters opposing the 914,000 square foot office park on the 41-acre former hospital campus on Woodland Road came from the Communities for Fells Preservation (CFFP). This group of citizens from Stoneham and surrounding communities has said all along that the Gutierrez project is too big for the site.
“We are very pleased with the Secretary’s decision about the scope of the project,” said Stoneham CFFP President Miriam Regan-Fiore. “It validates our concerns.”
But this battle of the Fells is far from over. Gutierrez is pressing on, and so is the CFFP — on several fronts.
When asked whether she could be satisfied by a scaled down version of the Stoneham Executive Park as recommended in Durand’s letter, Regan-Fiore said, “That’s a big, huge question I’m not prepared to answer.”
The rejection of the draft environmental impact report does not include a deadline for filing the supplemental draft. Neither Houghton nor Regan-Fiore would speculate about a timeline for what’s next. But Houghton said the slow economy and shrinking tenant pool are disincentives for his client to rush into building. And the CFFP is waiting to see whether Bill 4180 comes out of a State House committee. If the bill were to become law, restrictions to work on Woodland Road would kill the Gutierrez project.
“That bill will never stand up,” Houghton said in a previous interview.
Representative Mike Festa (D-35th Middlesex) was a strong opponent of the bill, which he viewed as inappropriately targeting one individual company. But Festa is now (D-32nd Middlesex); he has been redistricted out of Stoneham.
“We’re pleased with the rejection, but we will continue to monitor the supplemental, the legislation...” Regan-Fiore said. “We’re not just going to wait and see.”
The town of Stoneham can’t do much but wait. Selectmen reiterated their support for the project at an Oct. 9 goals meeting. The town could receive up to $600,000 for public safety expenses and annual property tax revenue of close to $2 million, depending on the size of the project. The town needs money with a budget deficit looming, but the only thing on the horizon is more trouble. Houghton alluded to renegotiating the public safety deal in an interview before the rejection letter.
As the CFFP monitors, Gutierrez goes back to the drawing board to address some big questions:
Traffic
The rejection letter questions the methods used by Gutierrez to analyze the number and direction of vehicle trips in, out and around the site. The letter instructs the developer to reevaluate these traffic calculations.
The letter identifies more intersections that need mitigations plans, including Woodland Road and Ravine Road and Fellsway East and Phillips Road.
The letter also criticizes Gutierrez’s parking plan and advises that less parking might encourage more use of public transportation. Gutierrez proposed 3,288 spaces. Durand recommends fewer than 3,000.
Impact on parkland
Under Article 97 of the Executive Office of Environ-mental Affairs a developer must show that there are no feasible alternatives before he transforms public open space into part of a road or development. The developer must compensate for any loss of public open space by a more than one to one ratio. Much of the land around the site — the Middlesex Fells, Spot Pond — is state parkland controlled by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC).
Durand asked for more detailed explanations and architectural plans of what is proposed. Also, Durand agreed with a comment from the MDC that the developer should be responsible for “some ongoing contribution to the quality of the Reservation.”
Other issues
Drainage, wastewater control, construction procedures and pedestrian access to parkland were among the list of other issues addressed by the rejection letter. For more information go to www. magnet.state.ma.us/envir.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!