Stoneham Square has growing plains
Published on December 5th, 2001
STONEHAM , MA – The imminent metamorphosis of Stoneham Square may yield beauty or monstrosity.
The manner in which town officials approve and regulate development of the Square will make all the difference. A Dec. 20 meeting of the Board of Appeals at Town Hall will open the public discussion, but let’s back up to put this discussion in context.
Charlie Houghton, a Stoneham attorney known for representing builders, has argued for months that Stoneham needs a town planner to facilitate and coordinate the changing face of Stoneham Square. Houghton said he wants a bylaw change to allow for more than five housing units above commercial space in the downtown area. He argued that there should be no restriction on the number of units because height and parking restrictions are enough to keep the structures in scale with the Square.
Former Town Planner Steve Sadwick suggested the residential potential of the Square to Selectmen in 2000. However, revisions of the parking bylaw, the rezoning of the Gutierrez site, and assisting the Building Department dominated Sad-wick’s time.
After Sadwick quit last spring to take a planning job in Tewksbury, Selectmen decided not to advise hiring another planner because of budget worries. Ron Florino, Acting Town Administrator at the time, deferred to the Selectmen. The Town Planner position remains vacant, but new TA Dave Berry has posted a $50,000 per year Grants / Community Development Coordinator job. The deadline for applicants was Nov. 30. Berry must now sift through the resumes, but even after the post is filled, this coordinator faces an uncertain future without the full support of the Selectmen.
Houghton is now representing two clients with plans to change the look of the Square. The Cahills, owners of McDonough’s Liquors, want to tear down their building and replace it with a 45-foot high building with retail space on the ground level in front, parking in the rear of the ground level and three floors of residential units. The preliminary plans show 14 apartments.
Harry Paicopolos, owner of Highland Printing, wants to replace his building with a four-story building with his business on the lower level and three upper floors of housing, also 14 units.
The Cahills’ building will be the same height as the neighboring structure. And Paicopolos’ design mimics the brick face and design of other Square landmarks such as the Odd Fellows’ Building and the Independent’s home. But nothing in the Zoning Bylaw says anything about what these buildings must look like.
Without a planner, the responsibility to craft a bylaw to guide uniform development of the Square falls to the Planning Board.
“They didn’t want to change the bylaw,” Houghton said in an interview last week.
Planning Board Chairman Gus Niewenhous said the Planning Board will change the bylaws affecting downtown development but just not yet.
“We are looking at all the bylaws affecting the Central Business District as a package, but we are not ready to proceed,” Niewenhous said in an interview this week.
The Planning Board opted to instruct both the Cahills and Paicopolos to request a variance — for the number of units — from the Board of Appeals, basically saying, if it’s all right with them, it’s all right with us.
Looking ahead, it is not clear whether a variance will be all right with the Board of Appeals. The members cannot talk about a matter not yet before them, but common sense suggests several questions:
Where’s the parking?
Where’s the hardship?
To grant a variance the Board of Appeals must identify a hardship, or reason why the property owner has no other reasonable option than do what is proposed.
To address the parking issue Houghton wants to use the satellite parking bylaw, which allows property in the Central Business District to use spaces in nearby lots to meet zoning requirements. This issue would go back to the Planning Board. A question for them would be, How many times can you count the same spot?
And as for a hardship, none is obvious. The argument that it is too expensive to renovate without adding more than five units appear specious when the only reason any changes are being undertaken is to make more money.
These decisions are left to the Board of Appeals on Dec. 20, or the Planning Board on Dec. 6 (although the Square is not on the agenda), but it would be a shame for longtime property owners to pour time and money into projects that could grind to a halt with a single appeal. No one has voiced opposition yet, but nothing is ever built without someone getting upset.
The proposed buildings are attractive and appropriate, and residential units may be just what the Square needs. The former Town Planner thought so, and the Planning Board agrees...
“...but the timing is not appropriate for a bylaw change,” Niewenhous said.
To make sure future buildings are equally suitable to Stoneham and to shield the citizens who are paying for this revival of the Square from legal wrangling, all parties to this discussion agree that the Planning Board should oversee changes under the auspices of a new bylaw.
The 21st century identity of Stoneham Square will be determined by this turn of the millennium generation of town leaders.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!