SAUGUS — At Monday evening’s Special Town Meeting, members voted to refer an article that proposed to rezone a parcel on Forest Street back to the planning board, with members expressing concern about the lack of detail regarding the proposal for the lot, and the apparent failure to notify neighbors.
Board of Selectmen Chair Anthony Cogliano submitted the article, and Attorney Mark Bobrowski spoke on behalf of developer Sal Palumbo, who is seeking to construct a multi-family home on the parcel, which is currently zoned as residential 2. The proposal before Town Meeting was to rezone the property to the Business Highway Residential District.
Bobrowski explained that Palumbo owns 961 Broadway in addition to 39R Forest Street, which he said is “attached” to the parcel that Palumbo is seeking to change the zoning of.
“The problem here is that 961 Broadway’s designation, which is the Business Highway Sustainable Development zoning district, does not continue on to the lot six portion of Mr. Palumbo’s property. In order to turn the corner and access the developable portion of his land, he needs to change that to [the Business Highway Sustainable Development zoning district],” Bobrowski said. “That is the sum of the request before you this evening.”
Cogliano spoke in favor of the proposal, explaining that he believed it “basically shuts off any thought of traffic coming out onto Forest Street or coming into Forest Street because of Route 1.”
“I told Mr. Palumbo I would only speak in favor of this if it shut off any talk of ever going out onto Forest Street,” he said. “I protect all the neighborhoods in this town, Forest Street is certainly one of them.”
Cogliano, in an attempt to quell concern from Precinct 2 Town Meeting member Chris Riley that Palumbo could tear the property down and rebuild a development on the residential street, added that the Business Highway Sustainable Development zoning plan does not allow for expansion onto side streets off of Route 1, so once the property is rezoned, Palumbo would “never be able to use Forest Street.”
Precinct 5 member Pamela Goodwin motioned to refer the article back to the Planning Board because “the neighbors, many of which I understand were not notified of this, would be able to understand what exactly is being put in.”
Bobrowski noted that the Planning Board has reviewed the article twice already, though Goodwin said she was concerned about the relative newness of some of the board’s members, as well as the short time the board’s chair has served in that position.
“They had another public hearing on this more recently and they decided that it’s a good idea. This is exactly what you zoned when you bought the business highway sustainable development overlay district. It’s perfectly in keeping. We’re not proposing anything that is not allowed in that district … there’s plenty of opportunity for the planning board to consider this and reject it if that’s what they choose to do.”
Precinct 10 member Peter Manoogian said he’d like to see the proposal brought back to Town Meeting with a greater understanding of what exactly is going to be developed, as well as how the impacts on the neighborhood will be mitigated.
“I think it’s incumbent upon Town Meeting to protect the neighborhoods as much as possible,” he said. “I don’t want to see it killed. I’d like to see a master plan.”
Precinct 2 member Joe Vecchione, a member of the Planning Board, spoke in favor of the article, noting that the board did vote to recommend the article to Town Meeting.
“We had two different Planning Boards essentially look at this and recommend it for Town Meeting,” Vecchione said. “We think it’s a reasonable ask to create private access to the property, it’s not going to affect Forest Street in terms of access.”
The final vote to refer was the tightest of the evening, with 18 members voting to refer the article back to the Planning Board, 15 members voting against referral, and 16 absent votes.
Charlie McKenna can be reached at [email protected].
