Love’s Furniture public hearing set for Sept. 24
Published on September 22nd, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - Ignoring Town Counsel Bill Solomon’s opinion that doing so was illegal, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-1 in favor of holding a Friday site plan hearing on the Love’s Furniture building without the proper notice to abutters.
Although the site plan hearing for the proposed mixed-use renovation was originally scheduled for Oct. 5, local attorney Mark Vaughn requested the hearing occur this Friday so that a full board of Selectmen could sit in on the meeting.
“I don’t necessarily disagree with [Solomon’s] legal analysis,” Vaughn admitted. “But putting that issue aside, what’s driving this is our wish to have a full-board present.”
“I think our position is justified, as it’s such an important project, we thought it was appropriate to only proceed with a full board. I don’t think there’s any intent here to avoid public process or due process, that was just the only night we could do this,” the representative for local developer Joseph Cunningham added.
According to plans for the former site of Love’s Furniture, Cunningham would renovate the building to hold several thousand square feet of retail space topped off by 48 residential condominiums.
Already obtaining a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the density of the residential units — as local bylaws only allow five housing dwellings in the central business district — Cunningham most recently received a special permit from the Planning Board for the project three weeks ago. With those two hurdles overcome, a site-plan hearing by the Board of Selectmen remains the only obstacle preventing the developer from proceeding with the highly regarded redevelopment.
While the Selectmen consented to Vaughn’s request to move the hearing date up, further investigation by Selectmen Chair Cosmo Ciccarello and Solomon revealed that abutters would not receive the required 14-day notice of the meeting.
However, while Solomon opined that the short-notice violated the requirements of the Zoning Act, he also saw a potential loophole that the developer might utilize in dismissing any appeals submitted by residents challenging the lack of official notice.
In addition, Solomon believes that the burden of any appeals fall directly upon Cunningham, excusing the town from any responsibility for the improper notice.
“A notice to the abutters was mailed on [last] Friday. I believe a good-faith reasonable argument can be made that you can have a site plan hearing with less than 14-days notice. And I would say the risk, the legal consequences, are not with this board, but with the applicant” said Solomon.
“But do I think the 14-days is required? I must conclude that it is. If you believe your Town Counsel believes it’s unlawful and you don’t want to do it, that’s your judgement. It depends on whether you believe that giving nine-days notice instead of 14-days is such that the public is not getting a fair opportunity to hear about this,” the Town Counsel added.
Attempting to persuade board members that the short notice was a minor issue, Vaughn argued that the Selectmen regularly violate protocol by failing to mail official notices to abutters by certified mail.
The only Selectman to vote against allowing the hearing, Charlie Smith argued that exceptions shouldn’t be made for one person and not another — regardless of the importance of a particular project.
“We made bylaws and we should stick to them. We made laws and we stick to them. We don’t change the rules so one guy can benefit and not another,” Smith argued. “I’m all for this project, believe me. But I believe we should stay the course. Do you recall another time that we waived this [requirement] to speed things along?”
Dissenting with Smith, Selectmen John DePinto and Tony Kennedy believed the board should be accommodating given the importance of the project.
“I believe this is something we can do and do in good conscience,” said DePinto. “It came to my attention that there’s 61-banking days left for this project or it may not happen. And I think this town has a bad reputation and it’s time for us to start helping businesses.”
Agreeing with DePinto and Kennedy, Ciccarello agreed that too much was at risk to postpone the hearing.
“I’ve always tried to accommodate anybody who comes before this board. On the other hand, I don’t want to break the law. But I think this is a very, very important project. If he loses this, who knows what’s going to happen. Based on that, I’m leaning towards a yes vote.”
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!