Voters side with space
Published on October 29th, 2003
STONEHAM, MA - Stoneham citizens affirmed their commitment to green space at last Monday night's Town Meeting, approving two articles that would establish conservation land and recreational open-space and rejecting an article that would make it possible to build a house at Emerald Court.
As a result of the Town Meeting actions, the town will lose a projected $350,000 in revenues for Fiscal Year 2005 and an estimated $500 annually in property taxes.
According to Board of Selectmen Vice-Chair and Revenue Generating Committee member Tony Kennedy, the Town Meeting votes might also force the town to reconsider the future sales of municipal property to bridge a multi-million dollar deficit for 2005.
"The message I got from Town Meeting is that people value open space so we have to respect that. At the next [Revenue-Generating Committee] meeting, we're going to have to determine whether we want to stay away from land sales and concentrate on other ways to generate revenue," Kennedy said.
Atwood Avenue-Article 17
Among the three land articles, the Town Meeting audience voted to designate a town-owned Atwood Avenue property as conservation land.
Although the town's Board of Selectmen and Finance and Advisory Board urged the audience to vote Article 17 down so that it could be sold to balance the Fiscal Year 2005 budget, the Conservation Commission, which sponsored the article, countered by claiming that the preservation of the lot in its natural state was in the best interests of the town.
"Even though this is a relatively small lot at 20,000 square feet, we feel any development would cause flooding. We feel that voting favorably on this article would be in the best interests of the water shed," argued Conservation Commission member Scott Peterson.
"The town does have a lot of open space, but 80 percent of that is in the southern end of town. The open space plan has acknowledged that there are disparities in open space and we would like to take this opportunity to remedy that," Peterson added.
While Article 17 originally requested that the town transfer possession of the Atwood lot to the Conservation Commission, the audience approved an amendment proposed by Franklin Street resident John DeGeorge that would keep the land in the hands of the town.
Prior to the approval of the article, Town Treasurer Tom Ciccatelli made a last minute appeal to reject the article, arguing that the property was always intended to be developed.
"This property has a little bit of history. This was a buildable lot that would have a house on it if it wasn't foreclosed on. Too much property is not being put back on the tax rolls. One-third of the town is open space and that places a tremendous burden on the rest of the town," said Ciccatelli, whose plea was met with boos and angry shouts.
When the 2004 budget was put together by town officials last May, it included a $150,000 line item for the sale of the Atwood lot. Intended to help pay for $1.1 million in unfunded state charges, the Board of Selectmen backed off of the sale of the Atwood property after abutters approached the board and submitted their own $50,000 proposal for the land.
However, the neighbors prepared themselves for the lot's development after they were unable to afford a $75,000 counter-offer submitted by Town Administrator David Berry. In a last-ditch effort to keep the lot undeveloped, Malden resident Catherine Moore, whose parents abut the lot, requested that town officials hold off on the sale so that the future of the land could be decided by a Town Meeting vote.
Following the favorable vote on that article, Moore pumped her fist with a cheerful holler, saying only that, "this has been such a battle".
Stoneham resident Bob Gay, who spoke on behalf of the neighborhood when the negotiations with the town were initiated, also expressed his relief at seeing Article 17 passed.
"I left with my wife for Town Meeting last night and said, 'this is a 50-50 chance'...The way it went down last night was the proper way to do it. That area in town has just been overrun by industry and by keeping it green space, it leaves a future for the kids," remarked Gay.
51 Montvale Avenue - Articles 9, 10 & 11
Also designating land as open space, the Town Meeting audience voted to accept a three-article package that gifted a 1.2-acre parcel of land at 51 Montvale Avenue to the town in exchange for rezoning the commercial areas of the property to the Highway Business District.
Article Nine of the warrant sought to re-zone a portion of 51 Montvale Avenue from the Residence B and A District's to the Highway Business District. According to Planning Board Chairman August Niewenhous, the first re-zoning article would only legitimize the zoning of a property that has long had a commercial business use.
"This article is basically wrapping the use into what's most appropriate for the area. It will be recognizing the property for that which it's already being used as," commented Niewenhous before the audience voted unanimously to accept the article.
In turn, Articles 10 and 11 sought to rezone the approximate 65,000 square foot parcel behind the Montvale Garage and Stoneham Ford from the Residence B district to recreational open space and to then gift that parcel to the Board of Selectmen.
However, Article 11 met strong resistance from Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello, who termed the proposal as part of "a sweetheart deal" that would unnecessarily take property off the tax rolls.
According to Ciccarello, the Board of Selectmen only learned about the existence of Article 11 three weeks ago despite the fact that the motion was sponsored by his board. Claiming that closed-door negotiations took place between Town Planner Michael Gallerani, the Conservation Commission, and the owner of the Montvale property without the Board of Selectmen's knowledge, Ciccarello refused to endorse the article.
"I think Mr. Gallerani should have been suspended. You had nice closed-door meetings and that's not appropriate. We were kept in the dark for eight months. This is the same thing Mr. Balfour did to us with the MDC...It's nothing but a sweetheart deal," Ciccarello vented at the Board of Selectman meeting prior to Town Meeting.
"I have a problem with taking a piece of land off the tax rolls. I don't want any part of a park. Who's going to maintain it? We can't even maintain what we have. Folks, you voted the way you wanted to on it, and I respect your position. I hope you respect mine," added Ciccarello, his remarks echoing those made on the Town Meeting floor.
Responding to Ciccarello's arguments, Stoneham resident Ken Pruitt, who was involved in what he termed "informal discussions" about the warrant articles, claimed that any losses from the land donation would be made up from the gains of rezoning the commercial portion of the lot. Pruitt further argued that the land donation will become a nature park that will require little to no maintenance work.
"By increasing the commercial opportunities of Montvale, the increases in those tax revenues will far outweigh any decreases or losses from the donation of the land," explained Pruitt. "It's not intended to be a playground. It's intended to become a nature park that remains in its original untouched state," explained Pruitt before the audience voted to accept Articles 10 and 11.
Emerald Court - Article 13
Also an article that would have paved the way for town officials to sell a plot of land to balance the 2005 budget, citizens rejected an article that would have re-zoned an Emerald Court property from the Educational District to the Residence A District.
Perhaps hurting the cause of advocates in favor of the rezoning, the town's Planning Board refused to take action on the article after no municipal officials showed up to a public hearing scheduled for last Wednesday night.
Claiming that the absence of any town official to explain the article was part of a larger problem where the Planning Board is expected to put a "rubber stamp" on rezoning articles without being provided the necessary information, Planning Board member Frank Federico refused to endorse the motion.
"This [article] must have been fast-tracked too. I don't know where this is coming from. This is the first I've heard of this. No one's giving me a reason to vote on it. I'm tired of being the bastard child of town government. Had someone showed up and explained this to me, I probably would have voted for it," said Federico before his board voted 3-1 in favor of taking no action on the article.
However, even without the Planning Board's decision to take no action, Article 13 still met plenty of opposition from abutters concerned with flooding as the result of developing the property.
"I have a lot of concerns about something being built on this property and about whether the street can handle this traffic. I'm personally unhappy about it," commented 14 Emerald Court resident Pamela Swallow.
"Before we moved in, we got together to pave the road. You want to build a home there, but you might be flooding other people out whose homes have been there for years and years. I really don't think anything can be built there," added 15 Emerald Court resident Ann Civitareale, before the Town Meeting audience rejected the article.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!