Revenue-raising articles crushed by voters
Published on October 26th, 2005
Town Meeting crushed two proposals on Monday night that would have piped at least $500,000 worth of one-time revenues into Stoneham's depleted coffers.
With the two warrant articles seeking to create a billboard overlay district and to transfer an Emerald Court property into the Selectmen's control, both measures either failed or barely managed to obtain a favorable majority vote - never mind the two-thirds margin of victory required.
The first order of business on Monday night, 160 Town Meeting attendees soundly defeated an article that would have allowed the Selectmen to sell an Emerald Court property for an estimated $150,000 to $300,000.
Ultimately falling 23 votes short of a two-thirds majority, the defeat of the Emerald Court proposal came less than a year after May Town Meeting approved a rezoning of the lot from an educational to residential designation.
However, shortly after that measure passed, the jurisdiction of the land reverted back to the School Committee's control, blocking the potential sale of the land.
Last night's article in turn tried to put the property back in the hands of the Selectmen, a transaction that would have mimicked a Town Meeting approval given two-years ago for the very same purpose. If town officials had supported an amendment made at that time by Franklin Street resident John DeGeorge, which attempted to make the transfer permanent, last night's request would have been unnecessary.
"This article would transfer control of this property to the Board of Selectmen. Unlike a similar article a number of years ago, this article does not have any time restraints," explained School Committee member Kristen Russo, who added that the school system had no use for the lot.
Opposing the favorable recommendations of the Finance Board, Selectmen, and School Committee, Emerald Court resident Pamela Swallow, whose residence abuts the land parcel, insisted that the sale of the property would have a detrimental affect on the entire neighborhood.
Specifically, the Emerald Court homeowner argued that the narrow private way that leads to the lot couldn't handle the vehicular increase associated with a new home, as both parking and passing space was restricted on the roadway. Swallow further claimed that the addition of impervious surface that would result from new construction on the street would flood area neighbors homes.
Chastising the School Committee for even proposing the land sale, the abutter alleged that the school department never assumed responsibility of the lot when it was under their control. When the overgrown brush and illegal dumping at the property became too much of an issue, Swallow's family assumed caretaker responsibility of the land, the resident claimed.
"On several occasions, I requested that the school department come and clean up the property. But that fell on deaf ears. It was then that my husband assumed custodianship of that property," Swallow recalled. "And this land was forgotten until about three-years ago...when it came to the attention of town officials that it might be valuable."
"We're not opposed to the town raising money for meeting it's fiscal obligations. But setting aside the financial benefits, we would like to point out some very negative impacts to the residents," the long-time Stoneham resident added.
Article 2
Failing to gain even a simple majority, Article 2 of the town warrant, which sought to create a billboard overlay district, was similarly rejected by the assembly.
Nearly a half-hour prior to the start of Town Meeting, the Selectmen unanimously consented to a legally binding contract with ClearChannel that would guarantee $275,000 to Stoneham in exchange for permanent rights to the petitioner for the billboard.
With Selectmen Chair Bob Sweeney absent, only Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello disagreed with endorsing the document, as he felt the town could potentially negotiate a higher rate of compensation for the sign.
However, the seven-term Selectman later abandoned his opposition after Town Counsel Bill Solomon convinced him that the money was being exchanged for the passage of the warrant article.
"Once the Town Meeting votes, this becomes a bylaw. And that in effect is what the payment is for, the bylaw change," Solomon argued. "You will have the right to grant or not grant a special permit, but once you give them the article, you've given them what they want."
Despite the joint backing of the Finance Board and the Selectmen, the article was strenuously opposed by the Planning Board, who voted against the zoning change.
Explaining his board's rationale to the Town Meeting audience, Planning Board member Kevin Dolan argued that the proposal essentially amounted to spot zoning, as the article's legal provisions would essentially only allow one company to construct a billboard.
In addition, the Planning Board disagreed with language that made the Board of Selectmen the special permit granting authority for the sign, an authority that's traditionally reserved for the Planning Board. Lastly, Dolan guaranteed that the sign would hinder traffic along I-93, as more accidents would occur with the placement of the sign.
Challenging Dolan's last assertion, Finance Board member Mat Whooley demanded to know what traffic study was conducted by the Planning Board that proved more accidents would result from the sign's erection.
"In regards to traffic studies, there was no study done. But it's common sense that ClearChannel is going to pay $275,000 for a billboard because thousands of people are going to look at it as the go up and down I-93," Dolan responded.
Speaking in favor of the measure, Stoneham Police's Safety Officer Larry Rotondi claimed that rejected the proposal would fly in the face of continual demands from citizens that town officials find innovative ways to raise revenue outside of increased fees.
Agreeing with Rotondi, Stoneham resident Nina McGrath claimed that while she didn't like the idea of a billboard, residents forced the sign upon the community when they rejected the proposed proposition 2 and 1/2 override two years ago.
"As much as I want to keep Stoneham pristine like Reading, Reading already passed its override. This town needs money," McGrath said.
Despite those few voices in favor, the demands by many other residents that "this liter on a stick" be rejected ultimately resulted in the article's demise.
Article 3
While the first two articles failed, the Town Meeting assembly did pass another measure that could generate as much as $800,000 in reoccurring tax revenue with the construction of a 55-plus housing development.
Specifically, Article 3 will enable a bylaw change that will create a senior overlay district near 95 Maple Street, which currently houses a trucking depot.
Purchased by local developer Joe Cunningham, the former site of Plymouth Rock Trucking is now slated for a 200-unit housing facility that will stretch across the entire 5-plus acre property.
"They are proposing to transform that site into a well thought-out and appropriate housing development. It's estimated that the proposal would generate approximately $800,000 in tax revenue for the town," said Stoneham resident and local attorney Mark Vaughan, who explained that the current use draws-in $35,000 in yearly taxes.
With every interested town board in favor of the article, including the Planning Board, Finance Board, and Board of Selectmen - who deferred to take action on the measure but supported the proposal - only two people spoke against the proposal.
According to one of those voices of dissent, Planning Board member Mark Chatham, the development as proposed was far two dense. Specifically taking issue with language in the warrant article, Chatham argued that the zoning change waived several requirements by making setback rules less restrictive.
In addition, the Planning Board member claimed the change would allow a development that's three-times as dense as what would normally be allowed at such a property.
"If you do the math, this allows for 218-units. If this were in a Residence B zone, the maximum unit count this could have is 85. This completely misrepresents what the site would look like," Chatham remarked, referring to renderings of the proposed development.
Defending the proposal, Cunningham took exception Chatham's allegations and defended his work, saying residents only had to look at the Love's Furniture redevelopment project to understand that his word is as solid as oak.
With a number of other residents jumping to the local developers defense, the proposal later passed with ease.
Remaining Articles
With debate on the first three proposals consuming over two-hours worth of time, the remainder of the warrant articles were addressed in the typical lightening-fast succession that normally occurs towards the later hours of a Town Meeting.
The disposition of the remainder of the proposals is as follows:
o Article 4, which will allow laid-off police officers to work traffic details, passed unanimously with no debate.
o Article 5, which corrected an error in a former article that allows retired police officers to
work details, passed unanimously with no debate.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!