Outgoing official offers change

Wants site review for large projects

By Denise Dube, Globe Correspondent, 11/29/2001

ALTHAM - Although Robert Stanton lost his councilor-at-large seat in the Nov. 6 election, he is working until his term ends in the hope of changing the city's development standards.

Stanton, one week after the election, submitted a resolution asking that the city's bylaws include site-plan reviews for all developments built on any land parcel larger than 10,000 square feet.

Those site-plan reviews would provide officials with a complete picture of the development proposal, including the siting and proximity of buildings to one another and to nearby properties, and would examine landscape options, street frontage, and other building factors. Currently, Waltham's building requirements and zoning bylaws vary by zoning district.

With that change, Stanton said he hopes the city can have more of a say over developments that are cropping up around the city. ''I don't think we should guarantee the rape of the city,'' Stanton said and referred to what he called overly developed land parcels in some parts of Waltham.

So far, the resolution has made its way to the council's Ordinance and Rules Committee and the city's law department. Legal officials have examined Stanton's resolution and examined Winchester's bylaw ordinance changes from the 1990s.

Last week, the law department distributed Winchester's information to the Ordinance and Rules Committee. The city's Planning Department, the group that oversees development proposals, was also given the material and its staff will offer comments. The board is expected to offer its findings at the council meeting on Dec. 3.

Stanton did not just pluck the 10,000-square-foot limit out of the air. ''On the one hand, I didn't want to interfere with residential [building],'' he said, adding that there are not many residential lots available that are larger than 10,000 square feet.

Instead, Stanton said, he is more interested in regulating larger complexes and referred to two recent developments. ''There was a site on Trapelo Road where they built 30 condos. We had no ability to regulate [it],'' he said. ''They were zoned as commercial and being changed back to residential and there was nothing we could do.

''At the very least, maybe we could have had the buildings face Trapelo Road, in which case we would have looked at nice treatments on the windows. Right now, you're looking at the back side of the buildings,'' Stanton said of the development on the former VFW property. ''The face of the building looks very attractive. The rear end looks just like that, a rear end.''

With a bylaw change, he sees city officials having more control over developments. ''At least, when somebody does something, it's at least attractive and enhances Waltham as opposed to detracts from Waltham.''

Stanton, a member of the mayor's Long Range Planning Committee, which is making a master plan for the city, hopes that looking at the bylaws will be a part of the new committee's work.

According to Stanton, the Olympus Hospital property on Trapelo Road is now under a sales agreement and has already come up for a hearing with the Conservation Committee. ''With Polaroid going presumably bankrupt, ... here's probably the second-largest land owner in the city,'' Stanton said of two more developable properties.

''I couldn't wait any longer; we should be taking prompter action,'' he said of his recent resolution submission.

Stanton spoke about the current Indian Ridge and 640 Lexington St. proposals. ''To me, they are both over developing the two pieces of property. My guess is that 640 should remain a single-family home. It's across the street from the schools.''

''Just because a piece of property exists doesn't mean the city ordinances should guarantee they should make as much money as they want on it,'' he said.

The resolution is to surface again at the Monday City Council meeting. ''Hopefully,'' Stanton said, ''we'll have more to talk about next Monday night.''

This story ran on page W3 of the Boston Globe on 11/29/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.