Lenox LLC suing Norwood

The proponents of the 55 Lenox proposal – Lenox LLC – are suing the Town of Norwood, the Norwood Planning Board and each individual Planning Board member for denying the proposal at the start of this year.

The Planning Board’s decision back in January centered around what counts as tandem parking. The proposal has a fairly long backstory. Go to https://tinyurl.com/y6586d8v for the most recent decision from the Board regarding the stackers and go to https://tinyurl.com/43utpm9t for more background.

The short version is in the summer, Rojo’s owner John Shalbey first came to the Planning Board with the project, first requesting parking waivers based on stormwater and environmental improvements to the site. That didn’t appear to fly with the Board so he withdrew. Later in the fall of 2025, Shalbey returned with a proposal that utilized parking stackers to bring the total number of spaces up from the initial proposal’s 68 to 106.

The layout was approved by Building Commissioner Gary Pelletier, whose decision was backed up by Town Counsel David DeLuca and Town Planner Sarah Dixon. But the Board felt that stackers were not a proven technology, and that the Zoning Bylaw did not exactly define them, and therefore could not be counted as regular spaces. The Board voted 4-1 to deny the site plan approval for the site based on these criteria.

Lenox LLC’s appeal – https://tinyurl.com/5n6wsnuf – was originally filed on Feb. 5 and alleges that the Board’s decision and decision criteria were “arbitrary and capricious and without sufficient basis in fact or law. Despite being advised by the Building Commissioner, Directory Community Planning (Dixon) and Town Counsel that the parking configuration complies with all applicable zoning and planning requirements, the Board denied Site Plan Approval based solely on the Project’s parking configuration. The Board ignored the determination, advice and recommendation of the Building Commissioner, Director Community Planning, and Town Counsel. The Board’s denial of Site Plan Approval was erroneous, exceeds the Board’s authority and was arbitrary and capricious.”

Lenox LLC is asking that the Land Court reverse the Planning Board’s decision and “Declare that Lenox’s proposed project satisfies the standards for the site plan approval under the Norwood Zoning Bylaw, and that Lenox is entitled to site plan approval; grant Lenox its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and grant any additional relief which justice and equity may require.”

Town Manager Tony Mazzucco said at a recent Finance Commission Meeting that Lenox is seeking a summary judgment in the case, which he said will likely cost the Town $50,000, at the least. It came up at the meeting when Mazzucco said he’s requesting a reserve fund transfer at Town Meeting in May to cover the legal costs.

“We have to use outside counsel,” he said. “Sometimes we’re able to slough these off on Town Counsel, but in this case that will not work. The estimated cost through summary judgment is about $50,000. At summary judgment, which we’re anticipating in 90-120 days, we’ll either get a win or loss, it might end there depending on appeals. If they decide to go past summary judgment towards more of a trial, that will probably require another $50,000, and I assure you the legal budget does not have it this year.”

Mazzucco said they wanted to make sure the fund doesn’t run out, and is billed hourly. He said currently, Lenox is not seeking any financial damages, but if the Town doesn’t win, the Town has to pay for Lenox’s legal fees and costs associated, as outlined above.

The heart of the issue appears to be the definition of what a stacker parking system is, which Pelletier said was covered under tandem parking regulations and was governed by state law. Planning Board member Joseph Sheehan said at the January meeting where the Board denied the proposal that he didn’t think that was up to the Building Commissioner.

“I do not believe the building inspector has such super powers as mentioned; if he did, this would set a terrible precedent throughout the whole Town, making parking limits obsolete,” he said. “We might as well toss out our Zoning Bylaw when talking about parking limits. This is a serious issue for the Town Meeting to address. I ask this Board to bring up and discuss these parking issues as soon as possible, in order to bring to Town Meeting a comprehensive Zoning Bylaw regarding parking lifts, where they might be used, perhaps commercially, or where they might not be used or limited, as in residential areas.”

Advertisement

Furthermore, Member Debbie Holmwood at the time said that stacked tandem parking seemed to refer to a single-story layout of tandem parking and not a one-on-top-of-the-other configuration, as was discussed.

“Tandem is one behind the other,” she said. “Stacked does not mean one on top of the other, in my mind; use a different word. But we haven’t defined that in this. And I don’t think it’s up to us to change.”

Lenox’s attorney, David K. McCay, cited Section 9.5.A.16 of the Norwood Zoning Bylaw – https://tinyurl.com/3jpupfsd – which defines structured parking as: “A structure in which vehicle parking is accommodated on multiple stories; a vehicle parking area that is underneath all or part of any story of a structure” et cetera, with emphasis added on this part of the bylaw.

“The Project’s ‘tandem, stacked’ configuration is consistent with the definitions of ‘Parking Space’ and ‘Parking, structured’ in the Zoning Bylaw,” McCay wrote. McCay also stated that stackers are not explicitly prohibited by the bylaw either.

The case details, which can be found at – https://tinyurl.com/2yac5n8r – show the next pre-trial conference set for March 13.