Christopher builder files for extension
Published on March 31st, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - With Malden developer R. DiNanno & Sons wishing to reopen stalemated negotiations with neighbors, the town's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will delay its March 16 ruling to limit Christopher Street's proposed condominium project to eight units.
According to a letter submitted to the ZBA by Burns and Levinson Attorney John Smolak, the developer agreed to a thirty-day extension of the board's deliberation period, which would have ended on March 23.
"I am requesting the Stoneham Zoning Board of Appeals to agree to extend for a period of thirty days, the time within which a decision must be filed...to Friday, April 23," wrote Smolak.
"Within this time period, the applicant intends to have further discussions with the neighborhood group with the intent of attempting to resolve outstanding issues between the parties and to present the board with a set of recommendations," the correspondence continued.
While neighborhood attorney Daniel Hill remained skeptical that a compromise could be worked out between the developer and abutters of the project, he believes R. DiNanno & Sons made a smart move by reopening the negotiation process, as any person appealing the ZBA ruling could stall the condominium construction phase for years.
"I'm not surprised," said Hill of DiNanno's request. "It's a good move on the developer's part because if anybody appeals the permit, it could tie up the development for a year or more. The support of the neighbors means there won't be any appeals and they'll be able to start building right away. But they're going to need a total consensus because any one appeal by a neighbor will halt the project," Hill added.
Ending a stalemate of their own, the ZBA voted unanimously on Tuesday March 16 to limit the size of the proposed 16-unit condominium development to eight units.
Because affordable housing or Chapter 40B laws allow a developer to skirt local zoning and building bylaws, board members struggled with addressing several blasting, density and safety concerns associated with the project while still allowing R. DiNanno & Sons to receive a reasonable financial return on its investment.
"We have to keep in the back of our minds that when you're cutting units, there's financial impacts to the developer," advised ZBA Chairman William Sullivan, who proposed reducing the project from 16 to 10 units. "I'd like to see this go to the [Housing Judicial Court] with something that has a good chance of standing up."
According to Sullivan, allowing the construction of 10 units and demolishing the existing house on 20 Isabella Street would satisfy many of the board's concerns, including lack of visitor parking spaces, the need for ledge blasting, and the lack of open-space at the proposed site.
"I think a major concern is the blasting. There are four proposed units on that ledge and I feel if those units weren't there, the expense of removing the ledge would be gone as well. It would also help with the open-space and I'd like to see one visitor parking space for each unit," Sullivan remarked.
With the ensuing silence by board members indicating their reluctance to go along with a 10-unit development, ZBA members Frank Vallarelli and Henry Sampson proposed an eight-unit complex.
"I think what we discussed at the last meeting was good," said Sampson, referring to a previous suggestion that the project be limited to eight units. "They should be able to do the same design. I figure with eight, it's going to leave room for everything -- more open-space, more parking, more snow removal. And that's what I'm voting on tonight."
Agreeing with Sampson, Vallarelli proposed restricting the development to eight units, and cutting the existing house from the development -- thereby saving $400,000 in land acquisition costs and reducing 50-60 feet in paving costs for the access road to the project.
With the unanimous approval of the board, the ZBA then voted to restrict blasting on the site's ledge populated areas, to require one visitor parking space for every constructed unit, and to have two of the site's two-bedroom and two of the site's three-bedroom condominiums designated as the affordable housing.
According to Hill, with R. DiNanno & Sons representatives indicating that the eight-unit total is non-negotiable, it will prove difficult to forge a total consensus with neighbors.
"I think the number of units is non-negotiable...At this point, that's their proposal and I don't think they would suggest reducing it any further," the Anderson & Kreiger attorney said.
"I'm not sure," responded Hill when asked if he thought an amenable compromise could be worked out. "It's not really in my hands or the neighbors' hands...He's [DiNanno] going to have to give us something in return. So the question is whether there is anything the developer can do to satisfy the neighbors' concerns. I think we're talking about 100 neighbors, so it's hard to define any sort of consensus."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!