| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 08:37:05 AM
|
| That why I used the word "seems" in the first sentence of my post Massdee. Even in the city's ordinance, there is a only a requirement for .5 spaces per unit if the development is "public assisted elderly and handicapped housing". But since the developer stated that this is not his intent, I did not include it in my prior post but gave a link so that anyone could check out the whole ordinance. As I said, the ZBA will have to sort it all out. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 08:55:32 AM
|
I just read the following on Topix.
Tonight the Alderman vote on the Devens school property. Unless they require restrictions on the use of the property in the deed to protect the neighbors, there won't be anything in the deed itself to bind the new owner on the use of the property now or in the future.
On zoning issues regarding parking, the Board of Appeals can grant him a variance, which is likely.
The Board of Aldermen is the last hope for the neighbors.
The streets abutting the school are too narrow for heavy traffic.
Also, who is to say the property won't be sold in a few years for something else if there is nothing in the deed to protect the city or the neighbors? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 09:18:44 AM
|
Just to play devil's advocate in this case, I believe that the counter arguement would be that the zoning of the parcel would still offer some protection of what it could be used for now or in the future. However, I am unsure what the current zoning of the parcel would allow. In this case, I will gladly defer to the alderman from the ward, who is a lawyer, along with the city's legal department to determine if restrictions on the use of the property need to be added to the deed.
And after re-thinking a couple of my earlier posts to clarify them, it would be up to building department and, possibly, the city solicitor's office to determine if a proposed development conforms to zoning requirements before any requested variances are referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 10:01:36 AM
|
Tetris,
If the building department determines that the proposed development is conforming, there would be no need for the developer to go before the zoning board of appeals, right? Then wouldn't that mean there would be no other opportunity for the neighborhood to be part of the discussion? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 10:31:47 AM
|
Massdee,
That's my understanding of it, that's why I found it important to clarify my previous posts. However, more than 8 parking spaces will automatically trigger approval of the Planning Board (and other things that I'm unaware of may as well). |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 10:50:42 AM
|
| If it was to go to the planning board, would that be an advertised public hearing? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 12:05:05 PM
|
The Planning Board is defined in Chapter 2 of the City Ordinances. That part of that ordinance defers to MGL as the source for the Planning Board's duties and responsibities. From MGL, Section 41, Section 81T:
Every person submitting a definitive plan of land to the planning board of a city or town for its approval or for a determination that approval is not required shall give written notice to the clerk of such city or town by delivery or by registered mail, postage prepaid, that he has submitted such a plan. If the notice is given by delivery the clerk shall, if requested, give a written receipt therefor to the person who delivered such notice. Such notice shall describe the land to which the plan relates sufficiently for identification, and shall state the date when such plan was submitted and the name and address of the owner of such land; and the facts stated in such notice shall be taken by the city or town clerk as true, unless the contrary is made to appear. Before approval, modification and approval, or disapproval of the definitive plan is given, a public hearing shall be held by the planning board, notice of the time and place of which and of the subject matter, sufficient for identification, shall be given by the planning board at the expense of the applicant by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town once in each of two successive weeks, the first publication being not less than fourteen days before the day of such hearing or if there is no such newspaper in such city or town then by posting such notice in a conspicuous place in the city or town hall for a period of not less than fourteen days before the day of such hearing, and by mailing a copy of such advertisement to the applicant and to all owners of land abutting upon the land included in such plan as appearing on the most recent tax list.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 4:47:23 PM
|
It seems as if someone over on Topix wants to take me on over my previous post. That's O.K.; I just wish they that come over here to do it as it would have made the conversation less confusing.
For those that have not read that post, it cites an additional section of MGL that I missed when I made my last post. This section of MGL (Chapter 41, Section 81P) describes a process that could be used to avoid planning board approval on a plan. In this case, the plan would still needed to be submitted to the planning board but only as proof that approval is not needed. If that claim could be supported, no public hearing on the plan would be held and the plan would be "blessed" as not requiring approval.
I readily admit that I missed this section of MGL when I made my post about a hearing being required. However, in this instance, I still believe that a hearing will be required. I brought up the subject of planning board approval for the project this morning after reviewing the off street parking requirements of the city's zoning ordinances. They state that any development that is adding more than 8 parking spaces requires a review by the planning board. As such, I don't believe this project will be able to bypass planning board approval unless they reduce the number of off-street parking spaces to 8 or less. If they did that and tried to keep the number of units at a profitable level, the project would have a hard-time making it past the building department and the zoning board of appeals without a hearing. Therefore, I believe that there is no way that this project could be "blessed" without some type of public hearing about its parking issues. Not a lawyer, but that's my take on it. |
Edited by - tetris on 05/12/2008 5:02:04 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2008 : 12:46:53 PM
|
I was glad to read Senator Galluccio is working on this at the State House. I have never seen so much abandoned property in my life and it's very sad.
Put solution in reach of local lenders
May 19, 2008
YOUR MAY 14 editorial "Out of touch on foreclosures" was on the mark in calling on President Bush to rethink his position on legislation to insure up to $300 billion in refinanced subprime mortgages. I represent three cities - Chelsea, Everett, and Revere - that are among the hardest hit by surging foreclosures and the collateral economic consequences of abandoned properties and lost tax revenue. The president's concern about rewarding the lenders who irresponsibly granted these loans should be addressed by opening up the secured financing opportunities to local banks and lenders that typically hold on to and service these loans locally, not by stopping the funding altogether. Long before Internet banking gained favor, our local banks and credit unions served as the traditional and reliable lenders for many residents seeking to purchase a home.
more stories like this
There are a number of important initiatives underway or under consideration at the state level to deal with the foreclosure crisis, including a foreclosure moratorium related to subprime loans, help for borrowers with counseling and credit implications associated with foreclosure, and assistance for communities with the purchase and resale of foreclosed properties. Without significant federal support, this problem will continue to plague neighborhoods across Massachusetts.
ANTHONY D. GALLUCCIO
State senator
Democrat of Cambridge |
|
|
|
arthur
Senior Member
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2008 : 1:46:51 PM
|
BOSTON -- Sen. Edward Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor.
Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday that preliminary biopsy results showed a malignant glioma in the left parietal-lobe. It was detected after Kennedy, 76, was airlifted to Boston on Saturday after having a seizure at his Cape Cod home.
My prayers are with his family |
|
|
|
arthur
Senior Member
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 2:13:43 PM
|
Under the gun
Your hometown can be the key to a concealed-weapon license, and some say that's not fair
By Matt Carroll, Globe Staff | May 29, 2008
Gun owners are complaining that local police chiefs have far too much leeway in considering applications for the state's concealed weapons license, creating a frustrating patchwork of regulations that varies from community to community.
In a letter to the state attorney general's office this spring, a statewide advocacy group for gun owners complained that police chiefs put up roadblocks that are unnecessary and possibly illegal for anyone seeking a "license to carry." The Class A license allows the holder to carry a concealed handgun or rifles or shotguns with a large capacity for ammunition.
"All communities should be on the same page," said Ralph Carrick, a 60-year-old Peabody resident who has had a license to carry for 16 years.
In his town, gun owners had been required to receive safety training every other time they renewed their license, meaning they would be hit with a course fee of roughly $100 every 12 years. Peabody ended the practice recently, but Carrick says he isn't placated.
"Things can change overnight. It depends on the chief," he said.
To get a Class A license, state law says, an applicant must be 21, a US citizen, and never have been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor with a sentence longer than two years.
They must also complete a firearms safety course. The license is good for six years.
But the law also leaves the licensing process in the hands of local police chiefs and gives municipalities and the chiefs broad discretion in having applicants meet other requirements.
For instance, some communities require applicants to take a firearms certification course every time they reapply for a license. Some chiefs require letters of recommendation or letters from physicians, charge a higher fee than required by state statute, or force applicants to join gun clubs. Gun owners also may face additional Class A license restrictions that might limit them to hunting or sport shooting.
Everett requires two letters of recommendation, while Haverhill asks for a letter from an employer. Brookline orders licensed owners to pass a gun certification test when they renew their license every six years. Boston requires membership in a gun club. Andover requires a note from a doctor.
Some reasons for denial are specific - violent felons are not eligible - but others are open-ended. For example, the law allows chiefs to decide how "suitable" a person is.
Some chiefs feel that a person charged, but not convicted, of assault and battery might qualify for a license; others disagree.
For their part, local chiefs shrug off the complaints. Their requirements are legal, and it's good that local communities have some control over who is armed within their borders, they said.
"I don't think two is unreasonable to ask for," Everett Police Chief Steven A. Mazzie said of the letters required by his department, noting the responsibilities associated with gun ownership. It's just another way to get a feel for the person applying for the license, he said.
Peabody Chief Robert L. Champagne said he changed his policy on taking safety courses because of a "little push-back" from gun enthusiasts concerned about the cost of the courses.
The chief said he had expected that over time those who ran the courses would introduce refresher sessions, which would be cheaper. That never happened, he said.
So he reconsidered and now requires a single education course when someone first gets a license, as the law states.
"I still think it's a good idea" to take the courses occasionally, he said, noting police officers take the courses at least once a year.
The Gun Owners' Action League, a Northborough-based nonprofit that is an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, sent a letter in March to Attorney General Martha Coakley's office complaining about the inconsistencies.
The letter, signed by James L. Wallace, GOAL's executive director, said licensed owners are not being treated equally, pointing out that communities such as Cambridge, Holden, and Methuen charge more than the $100 allowed by law, and Andover and Lawrence require notes from doctors.
In a follow-up to his letter, Wallace met last week with Coakley to press his group's request that police chiefs statewide use uniform standards to judge gun-license applicants.
Melissa Karpinsky, a spokeswoman for Coakley, described the meeting as productive and said, "We're in the process of reviewing the concerns" raised by Wallace.
GOAL has already won one victory. The organization complained in November to the state inspector general's office that a number of communities were charging more than the law's $100 figure, with Cambridge's fee at $120. Cambridge has since trimmed the fee to $100.
The issue is a hot topic among gun owners.
An online forum, northeastshooters.com, has posted a color-coded map of Massachusetts showing the ease or difficulty in obtaining a license in each community, based on feedback from members.
A database of license denials provides partial evidence that standards vary widely. Tough communities, such as , Brookline, Lowell, Quincy, and Revere, denied 6 to 9 percent of applicants between 2004 and 2007, according to figures from the Criminal History Systems Board.
"We're pretty strict," said Revere Chief Terence Reardon. His department turned down 8 percent of applicants for a Class A license between 2004 and 2007, according to the state figures, second only to the small town of Berkley, which turned down 9 percent.
A big problem for applicants is either lying or leaving out information about any court proceedings in their past. "We toe a hard line," Reardon said.
At the other end of the scale, more than 80 departments showed zero denials, and many others had only a handful.
However, the figures are missing some nuances that make them harder to interpret, especially for communities where it appears there are few or no denials.
In some communities, a prescreening process allows applicants facing rejection to back out before submitting a formal request and paying a fee.
Part of the problem is confusion among gun owners and even chiefs about what exactly the restrictions mean.
That's understandable because the law does not define the restrictions, said Lee's police chief, Ronald C. Glidden, who is also chairman of the state Gun Control Advisory Board, which is appointed by the governor and considered an authority on the issue.
"They may mean different things to different people because they are not a regulation," said Glidden. "That has been a problem historically since day one."
To reduce confusion and limit the range of Class A restrictions, a shorter list was developed about a year ago with four categories: target and hunting; sporting; employment; and other.
It means, for instance, that a license granted for sporting can't be used for employment.
There are three additional levels of licenses issued by Massachusetts: the Class B license, which applies to nonconcealed handguns that carry less ammunition and large-capacity rifles and shotguns; an unrestricted Firearms Identification card, which applies to nonlarge-capacity rifles and shotguns; and a restricted Firearms Identification card, which allows the owner to carry a chemical repellent.
John Rosenthal, founder of the nonprofit Stop Handgun Violence organization in Massachusetts, said he is happy with the way the law works now.
"We make it at least a little bit harder for criminals and terrorists to get guns, and we have the lowest firearm fatality rate in the nation, second only to Hawaii. Gun laws work in this state," he said.
Others take a dim of view of what they see as the obstacles thrown up by police departments.
"They are trying to discourage you, and they put as many roadblocks in your path as possible, to give you a hard time," said Jim Lynch, 38, of Wilton, N.H.
A former Boston resident, Lynch said he moved two years ago because of, among other things, the city's obstructionist licensing policies.
Lynch and others pointed out that Boston requires applicants to take a gun certification course at a city facility, using city weapons.
"It's clearly geared toward discouraging people," he said.
Matt Carroll can be reached at mcarroll@globe.com.
|
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 07:10:57 AM
|
Rev. Msgr. Edmund J. Sviokla
On May 29. Former Pastor for 24 years in the Immaculate Conception Church in Everett. Beloved son of the late Constance and Sylvester Sviokla and loving brother of Sylvester Sviokla of Marshfield and Julia Guymont of Wellesley as well as 5 nephews, Sylvester, Francis, John, Frederick and Phillip. Father Sviokla leaves behind many brother priests in the archdiocese of Boston. There will be a wake for Msgr. Sviokla on Saturday from 2-5 pm at the Regina Cleri Residence, 60 O'Connell Way, Boston and Msgr will lie in state at the Immaculate Conception Church, 489 Broadway in Everett on Sunday from 3-7 pm. A Funeral Mass will be held at the Immaculate Conception Church in Everett on Monday June 2nd at 11 am officiated by the Most Rev. Francis Irwin. Memorials in Msgr's memory may be to the Clergy Retirement Disability Trust c/o the Regina Cleri Residence, 60 O'Connell Way, Boston. His interment will be at Calvary Cemetery in Brockton. Rocco-Carr-Henderson Funeral Service 1-877-71-ROCCO You must be logged in to see this link.
Published in the Boston Globe on 5/30/2008.
Guest Book • Flowers • Gift Shop • Charities
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 09:50:46 AM
|
EVERETT
SMELLY SITUATION - Following months of complaints about odors emanating from the Wood Waste of Boston facility off Revere Beach Parkway, the Board of Aldermen is sending a certified letter to company owner William Thibeault asking him to attend the board's next meeting at 7 p.m. on June 9 in City Hall. City Clerk Michael Matarazzo said that several months ago, acting on the board's request, he sent a letter to Thibeault about ongoing odor issues. "His lawyers wrote back and said, essentially, there is no odor, and it's not coming from us," Matarazzo said. Odor complaints are not new to Thibeault, who also owns the Crow Lane Landfill in Newburyport, where city and state authorities have issued violation notices and fines for odor and other problems. The Everett aldermen also will probably ask Thibeault about the status of two other parcels of land: the old City Yards on East Elm Street that has been the focus of litigation between the city and Thibeault; and a 32-acre parcel near Thibeault's facility on the parkway that has been eyed for development. -Kay Lazar
|
|
|
|
arthur
Senior Member
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 2:49:57 PM
|
MALDEN
Mayor floats per-bag fee for trash
By Erin Ailworth, Globe Staff | June 1, 2008
Mayor Richard C. Howard is proposing that Malden institute a pay-as-you-throw trash collection fee - coupled with ongoing healthcare benefit reforms requiring employees to pay larger portions of their plans - to balance a $130 million budget.
Even so, the city still will have to dip into the last of its reserve fund to close a $3 million to $4 million gap that would otherwise force Malden to lay off staff.
"I hope the theme is clear, that either, one, we have to accept the fact that we should raise some additional revenue ... or we should accept the fact that we should begin planning for some substantial cuts in a variety of departments," Howard said in a recent interview, reiterating the stark message he delivered to the City Council May 20.
He blamed the fiscal crunch on what he described as the "twin vises" of insufficient state aid and rising costs for healthcare and energy that every city and town is facing.
Public hearings on the proposed budget were set to start last week. The budget must be finalized by June 30, prior to the start of fiscal year 2009 on July 1.
Under the current proposal, Malden would implement a trash pickup fee -$2 per bag for every 35 pounds collected - on Oct. 1, following a three-month public education campaign. Frank Vacca, the city's treasurer-collector, said the program is expected to generate $2.5 million.
Vacca said the budget team, of which he is a member, decided to charge a per-bag fee because it would be cheaper for people who put out fewer bags and might spur others to increase recycling. Additionally, he said, the trash fee is "something that we can adjust year to year; it's something that we can eliminate in future years if we feel the need is not there."
This year, however, there is need. Though the city plans to use just over $1 million from its reserve fund - the last of that monetary cushion - to balance the budget, finances are tight enough that each city department has been level-funded. That means they must make do with the same amount of money that the department was allotted in last year's budget.
Howard said he's comfortable asking his constituents to take on a trash fee.
"I think we've always had a goal of delivering quality service and, I think, without new revenue, that would be compromised," he said. "We haven't sought overrides of any sort; we don't have any other types of users fees.... I think we've earned the right to ask the community to consider the additional revenue [through the pay-as-you-throw program]."
Meanwhile, city employees also will be asked to pay a larger portion of their health benefits plan. As it stands, employee health insurance is the city's "number one budget-cruncher," Vacca said, and costs Malden just under $24 million. A proposed 1.5 percent increase to the employee's share contribution, to 17.5 percent, would save the city approximately $1.5 million.
And yet, even with a new fee and lower healthcare costs, Howard said he expects Malden will grapple with tight finances for the foreseeable future.
"We don't really see any relief on the horizon," he said. "There is a part of the message here that says we seem to be on our own over the next several fiscal years."
So, Howard has requested that the City Council form a committee to help Malden pare its departments down to the essentials.
"What is critical? And where do we want the money we have to be directed to?" he asked. "If we get ahead of it, and we are faced with the same difficulty next year, at least we will have a year's worth of planning under our belt."
Erin Ailworth can be reached at eailworth@globe.com. |
|
|
|
unknown
Member
37 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 7:34:58 PM
|
Can we start a new Boston Globe thread soon ?
Seriously, 12 pages !
maybe do January thru June 2008 ( 1st 6 months) and then July thru December 2008 ?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
BOSTON GLOBE
