Chapter 40B hearing closed
Published on February 18th, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - Within the next 40 days, the town's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will decide the fate of a controversial condominium development adjacent to Stoneham's Isabella Street.
Closing a public hearing on the Chapter 40B or affordable housing project last Thursday night, ZBA members will now analyze and deliberate on several contested legal, safety, and construction arguments presented by petitioner R. DiNanno & Sons and an organized group of residents opposed to the development.
"The bottom line is once the meeting's closed, we have 40 days to render a decision. It's still a public meeting, there's just no public discussion," explained ZBA chairman William Sullivan, setting Feb. 19 as the board's first deliberation session.
Rebutting a recent Chapter 40B report submitted by the neighborhood's attorney, Anderson & Kreiger's Daniel Hill, the petitioner's representatives questioned the accuracy of the document's statistics.
The report, which was submitted just last month, contends that Stoneham has met its 1.5 percent threshold for affordable housing. Because Chapter 40B laws allow developers to skirt several zoning and building bylaws that normally pertain to local construction projects, the document, if accurate, could blast the condominium complex out of the water.
Yet, according to Burns and Levinson attorney John Smolak, who represents R. DiNanno & Sons, a review of the Hill report found several flaws that would place Stoneham's affordable housing makeup at or lower than 1.3 percent.
"The issue is the actual calculation of the lands. Several weeks ago we got in touch with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and we were able to get GIS information from them," explained Smolak.
"We found that the actual land area is 193 acres less than what attorney Hill identified. With that information in hand, if you add that land back in, you come up with a calculation of 1.3 percent," the attorney concluded, adding that independent consultant RKG Associates and a separate expert hired by the developer found similar errors.
However, Hill challenged the practicality of using GIS maps to contest the report's claims while utilizing assessor's cards for the rest of their calculations, claiming he could find similar inconsistencies that would make up the 193 acre difference by taking the same approach.
"I guess using a GIS record of the Fells is one way to do it, but we used assessor's records for everything else. To use one set of data for one calculation and another set for another, I think is wrong....I think our facts and records speaks for itself," responded Hill, who remained confident that a 40B attorney acquired by the town would support the neighborhood report's findings.
Claiming that he and Hill could debate the report for days, Smolak mentioned several other questionable statistics before requesting that the ZBA close the hearing and deliberate on the matter during the next 40 days.
"We could debate this past midnight for the next couple of days, but the fact is this is an issue the board can deal with and deliberate on past the closing of this hearing," Smolak said.
Putting the 40B report aside, Hill asserted that the project was still riddled with problems that hadn't been properly addressed during the public hearing, which lasted well over a year.
"The testimony you've received is pretty important and pretty dramatic...The figures included in the pro forma are greatly inflated. The applicant has not proven the existing drainage system on Isabella Street could support the site's increased water runoff," remarked Hill.
"The water lines feeding this development are not going to be looped, contrary to the recommendation of your town engineer. The site's inherently high water table and large ledge outcrop doesn't support a project of this density," Hill continued.
However, after Hill and Isabella Street resident Erica Mitchell implied that the developer made little effort to work with neighbors and questioned the petitioner's claims that a development with less than 16-units would not be economically feasible given the owner's application to place three houses on the 1.2 acre lot three years ago, DiNanno & Son's consultant Russ Tanner disputed the assertions.
"I honestly feel we improved this project through this process and we feel pretty good about how this plan has improved," Tanner commented.
"I was displeased to hear Mr. Hill say nobody tried. I think there's been a respectful relationship between us and the neighborhood group. Unfortunately, we weren't able to come to an agreement. I also just don't understand the comparison to the three lot subdivision, that's just not on the table anymore," Tanner added.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!