ZBA denies Amazon at Pendergast

The Norwood Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met with representatives of the landlord at 63-65 Nahatan Street, just northwest of the Pendergast Circle on Route 1, and voted unanimously to deny a proposed temporary parking use at the site.

The area is currently an unused factory originally built in the 1960s for the Mason-Nellan Regulator Company, most recently used by the Telco Company. Now, the site has been dormant for almost a decade while the landlord, according to their representatives, has been looking for a new tenant to take over the space.

In the meantime, attorney David Hern represented the different landowner companies. The overall owner of the property used to be Crosspoint Associates, but Hern said he is representing 63 Nahatan St. LLC, Nahatan Congress Park II LLC, and Telpoint Associates LP, now collectively the owners of the property. Hern added that all those companies are “related” to Crosspoint.

Hern said they want to rent out portions of the parking lot for Amazon delivery vans as a temporary use under Section 3.5 of the Norwood Zoning Code – https://gvimes.link/tmpzng

The provisions of Section 3.5 require that the reasons for the proposed use are by their nature temporary and should last no longer than three years, do not depart from “the apparent intent of the zoning bylaws for the vicinity in question,” and would not be detrimental or “injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity of the Town.”

And that’s where Hern and the ZBA disagreed.

Hern said the ask was for a two-year use of the site for parking of about 100 delivery vans and personal vehicles of the drivers.

“So 100 personal vehicles and 100 delivery vans for a major delivery company,” he said. “It’s no secret: Amazon, which has a facility up here on Everett Street in Norwood. They need a place to put these vehicles to have a sort of muster station when the drivers come in and they have to be given instructions.”

Hern said they would install temporary lighting, directional signage – so that trucks and cars are entering and leaving at separate egresses – temporary bathrooms, and also charging stations for the electric vans.

Hern said the traffic flow would be staggered, so that not all the drivers would be entering together, getting in their vans, and leaving the site all at once.

“There would be 400 vehicles; 200 going in and 200 going out over the course of the day,” he said.

Hern did say that the delivery vans’ return times would be dependent on the completion of their routes between 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Hern said the use is not specifically allowed, but the former use of the property had larger vehicles coming in and out before this.

“This property was used for many years as a manufacturing facility and had trucks going in and out all the time, of different sizes, including large tractor trailers,” he said. “It is no longer used for that purpose; I don’t expect that manufacturing is going to return to that site, but this does not, I would argue, detract from the apparent intent of the zoning bylaws. The use is not allowed there, but the idea of traffic going in and out of that site is something that has been going on for years.”

Hern said the property owner(s) will be looking to redevelop the site in the next couple of years (but that’s been a plan in the works since at least 2021).

“But in the meantime they would like to get some use out of it,” he said. “We think in two years we’ll be coming in here with development plans that would eliminate this use anyway.”

Norwood Building Commissioner Gary Pelletier said the use is not allowed and that the Board has the discretion for the proposed temporary use, and he said because of the traffic implication, he would recommend the Planning Board review the traffic plan under a Site Plan Review process as well as the special permit ZBA approval, if the Board went in that direction.

Abutters said traffic was the big issue there.

“We have all the car dealerships, they all test drive up and down all day long, so if 100 vehicles were added to that twice a day...” said resident and direct abutter Kathleen Marsden.

“Four-hundred,” said ZBA Chair Michael Sheehan.

“Four-hundred, exactly, that’s really going to impact the residents,” she finished.

“I would like the Board to deny this, and traffic would be the main concern,” said Steven MacFarlen. “Coming off Neponset Street from 95 in the morning, for me to come out and get on Neponset Street, it’s very difficult coming off of Dean.”

Sheehan asked Hern to go over the impact on traffic, which he felt was a major factor.

Advertisement

“We don’t expect there to be an impact on traffic,” said Hern. “I mean 100 drivers will arrive and 100 drivers will leave the site over the course of a couple of hours. They’re not coming out all at once, and they’re not coming out in big trucks. They’re coming out in relatively small vans. This property has had intensive use in the past, and it may have more intensive use in the future with the uses allowed under the Boston Providence Highway District. The fact that this use itself is not allowed does not mean this type of use wouldn’t result in a redevelopment of the site.”

Hern pointed out that the allowed uses of residential and retail could result in heavier traffic impact.

“It doesn’t hurt, and it can only help,” Hern said. “You’re taking a vacant property and putting it to a use that generates revenue, and perhaps also you’re generating business for local businesses with the drivers on their way into Town.”

Sheehan and the Board disagreed.

“I can give you my comments, if you want to hear them,” Sheehan said. “I don’t think they meet, under the special permit criteria, circulation. I don’t think they meet land use compatability – which says, ‘damaging the utility or enjoyment of nearby land uses through offsite impacts as an adverse effect,’ that’s detrimental, and I don’t think they meet criteria #7 (creating a positive fiscal impact).”

ZBA member Shannon Greenwood allowed that although many of the permanent uses to which this property could be put in the future could result in more traffic, the tax benefit would outweigh that traffic.

“I think the benefit the Town would receive from this temporary use – this is a really challenging stretch of roadway with the speeds coming out of the circle and the elevation change, it makes it really difficult to see people coming in and out, I’m just having a hard time seeing the benefit to the Town as outweighing the negative impacts, particularly as it relates to circulation,” she said.

ZBA member Al Porro pointed out that a temporary use may deter permanent uses, and that there are already better areas for parking.

Hern asked the Board – after ‘reading the tea leaves’ – for a withdrawal without prejudice so they could try again. Sheehan did not agree.

“This doesn’t cut it, it’s a bad area for this, and there are other areas in Town,” he said. “It’s up to the Board if someone wants to make that motion.”

No one did, and the Board voted to deny the proposal unanimously.