Parking or aesthetics, apparently you can't have both

The Norwood Planning Board met last week and had two discussions concerning MBTA Communities Act proposals.

The MBTA Communities Act, or 3A as it’s known, mandated that zoning around MBTA Commuter Rail stations, bus hubs, and subways be rezoned to include more multi-family zoning. The participating municipalities are required to comply with some say relative to the buildings themselves.

The Board heard from representatives of 55 Lenox St. – diagonally across from the Shaw’s parking lot and a stone’s throw from the Norwood Depot Commuter Rail Station – and 25 East Hoyle St. – across from the Norwood Hospital construction site and close to the Norwood Central Station. The Board voted unanimously to continue both hearings until July 14 at 7 p.m. at the Norwood Senior Center.

Sidenote: residents at the meeting and past meetings have complained that they have trouble hearing the speakers at this particular location. The meetings are also available in a virtual format with Google Meet, the link for which can be found on each particular meeting’s agenda. The microphone for the virtual meeting is situated near the speaker and so it might be easier to hear.

Both of these projects are proposing big increases to housing: Lenox is asking for 96 rental units with 67 parking spaces, and East Hoyle is looking for 125 units and 145 parking spaces.

Concerning Lenox, the problem, even among some of the Planning Board, was parking.

“Even people who take the train have a car,” said member Ernie Paciokowski.

“I don’t love that there’s not a lot of parking but it’s not a residential area and people aren’t going to be spilling into the neighborhoods,” said Chair Debbie Holmwood.

“I was skeptical about the parking information that we were getting that claimed people weren’t using cars, and I think that’s a different discussion about density in these newer developments” said member Peter Bamber.

Proponent John Shalbey Jr., maybe better known as the General Manager at Rojo’s, pointed out that the trend appears to be less car ownership. “Not everyone these days has a car,” he said. “And it’s generational; the younger you are, car ownership is less. There have been studies done where only about 70 percent of parking is used at apartment buildings. And with this being so close to the commuter rail it helps. A lot of people will commute and won’t have a car. And also the bylaw allows if you’re within 700 feet of a public lot, you can get a parking spot at the lot and this property is less than 500 feet, and so falls in with that.”

The study Shalbey was likely referring to – https://tinyurl.com/3n263vt4 – looked at municipalities in and around Boston and found that overall, 30 percent of parking in apartment buildings was being underutilized in 14 communities. That was a total of 6,000 empty parking spaces over 41 acres of pavement representing an estimated $94.5 million in construction costs. Or, the report estimated, about $5,000 per housing unit.

Members Derek Mason and Brian Hachey pointed out that it’s likely people who require a car will simply not rent there, and that they felt the Town is over parked. Holmwood seemed to come down in the middle of the argument.

But all Planning Board members generally agreed; they really liked the look of the building.

“It’s a great looking building,” said Bamber. “I like details, I like the change in plane, I like the horseshoe shape, I like the courtyard style, it’s attractive and it’s just funny. We seem to be changing as a Town.”

Many residents spoke against the proposal based on parking concerns. The Board stated members did not feel ready to vote and continued the hearing.

Advertisement

For East Hoyle, the arguments against were completely about aesthetics, despite the bonanza of parking spaces (comparatively speaking).

“Don’t take this the wrong way,” said Paciorkowski. “But my first impression when I saw the building, it looks like a Travelers Insurance building. It looks like an office building. Please. Don’t just throw up a cinder block office building. Believe me I’m hoping that when it’s built it’s going to look nice. It’s what we drive by and we see. People drive by and they say either, ‘Man that’s a good looking building,’ or ‘Boy that’s a dump.’”

The building does have several architectural features – a rounded windowed edge, differences in materials to break it up, decks, and differently-sized windows. But it wasn’t enough.

“I don’t know how to be tactful,” Holmwood said. “This is a giant building. Now, your attorney (David Hern) says we can’t say no to it, (Town Planner Sarah Dixon) says we can’t say no to it, you’re not asking for relief, but we do have design standards. And I went and took some pictures of Westwood that everybody’s throwing at us. How come Westwood gets all this pretty stuff, and we don’t get anything? We don’t get a molding, we don’t get cornices, nothing. Is this in the flavor of the neighborhood? Do we have another building that looks like this? I mean this is a building in Cambridge and our design standards say they need to be in line with the aesthetics, and you’re giving us a big flat building with no detail.”

Maugel DeStfano Architect Jeremy Baldwin said they were going to work with the board to make sure they are satisfied. The Westwood project Holmwood was referring to was 22 Everett St., which has 160 units and 254 parking spaces, and has several of the units restricted to 60 percent area median income, in perpetuity – https://tinyurl.com/3wmnsfvf

Again, both projects are up for discussion on July 14 at 7 p.m. Go to https://tinyurl.com/348hfzzh for the agenda and virtual meeting link when they are available.