Selectmen balk at reducing units at Langwood project
Published on July 27th, 2005
Ignoring the advice of Town Counsel Bill Solomon, the town's Selectmen unanimously agreed to hold off their response to a unit reduction in the Langwood Commons proposal until after a potential Zoning Board decision on the development.
After arguing for a more detailed study of how a 100 unit reduction would impact the town's ability to meet the state's 10 percent affordable housing threshold, and appearing on the verge of motioning for such a move, Selectman John DePinto suddenly backed off his suggestion after a five minute recess.
Just prior to that recess, the Selectmen had appeared conflicted on how to deal with the "alternative" proposal, which would slice 100 apartments off the mixed-use development. However, with absolutely no debate, Depinto walked back into the hearing room following the five-minute break and successfully proposed waiting until after the ZBA issues a final decision on the project.
"I'd like to make a motion that we just proceed with the normal course and let the ZBA do what they need to do on Thursday. But I'd also like to authorize the Town Counsel to work with the developer [in obtaining funding for a study of the alternative proposal]," the first-term Selectman proposed.
During the most recent Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hearing on the mixed-use commercial and affordable housing plan, Burlington-based developer the Gutierrez Company and Colorado firm Simpson Housing, LP, unveiled an "alternative" proposal that would reduce the housing count from 550 to 450 units.
However, according to DePinto, such a layout change violated at least two portions of a development agreement between the town and the project proponents, including:
oA provision that prohibited the unit layouts, which included 390 apartments, 110 condominiums, and 50 townhouses, from exceeding a three percent change in either of the three dwelling categories
oLanguage that strictly authorized the town to withdraw its endorsement should the development not meet Stoneham's 10 percent affordable housing threshold, which prevents future 40B projects from coming before the ZBA
Primarily concerned with the petitioners' own admission that the "alternative" proposal would result in Stoneham falling short of its 10 percent threshold, DePinto believed that the town simply couldn't afford another large-scale 40B project.
"[The development] is too short-sighted right now unless we have a legal opinion or an expert opinion that it's going to meet 40B," the first-term Selectman argued. "I don't want another 300 40B-units in Stoneham. I don't think our schools can afford it, and I don't think our public safety can afford it."
While not necessarily disagreeing with DePinto, Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello referred to a statement at the last ZBA meeting by an attorney for project opponents that indicated Stoneham would meet its 40B requirements according to a second threshold.
Specifically, Anderson and Krieger Attorney Daniel Hill, who represents the BRMC Medical Condo Association, claimed that the town would meet its affordable housing threshold through the 1.5 percent provision - which nullifies 40B projects if 1.5 percent of a municipality's total developable land mass holds affordable housing.
According to Solomon, the environmental attorney most likely spoke correctly at the ZBA meeting when he suggested that the housing plan would meet the 1.5 percent threshold.
However, the Town Counsel added that town officials could never be sure that such was the case unless a professional reviewed that possibility, a cost that would carry an approximate $2000 price tag.
Suggesting that such a study be carried out prior to the ZBA issuing a final decision on the Langwood Commons proposal, Solomon further believed that the Selectmen should issue an up or down recommendation on the "alternative" proposal.
"If we had to bet on it, I would bet we had met the 1.5 percent threshold," the Town Attorney said. "If the Board of Appeals decides first, does the town have some rights? Well, yeah."
"But [the state] could say, 'well that's great Town of Stoneham, but you gave your approval, and it's too late'. I'd be remiss if I didn't say, 'you're in the best position if you do [a study] before [the ZBA decides],'" Solomon continued.
Dissenting with Solomon's point of view, Ciccarello believed that the Selectmen would wrongly influence the ZBA process by taking any stance on the "alternative" proposal prior to the board's formal decision.
Characterizing such a vote as "shady", the seventh-term Selectman explained that as the appointing authority of the Zoning Board, the Selectmen should have no part whatsoever in the hearing process.
"I really don't want to interfere with the Board of Appeals. We took a position. And the reason I don't go to these meetings is because I don't want the appearance of applying pressure on the Zoning Board," Ciccarello remarked.
Agreeing with Ciccarello, Selectmen Chair Bob Sweeney also advocated for waiting until the ZBA issues a decision on the project this Thursday.
Specifically, the Chairman was reluctant to create another barrier that might hold the BRMC development back, and hinted that the Selectmen might not want to know the answer to the 1.5 percent threshold question.
"I don't want to endorse a motion that's going to throw another kink or roadblock under the developer. I don't want to get into an area that we're not sure we want to. I think we should wait until their vote on Thursday," Sweeney said.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!