What is tandem?

The Norwood Planning Board voted 4-1, with member Ernie Paciorkowski against, to deny the site plan approval requested for the 96-unit residential building proposed at 55 Lenox St.

The vote came after a meeting last year in which the Board voted to close the public hearing, so no one but Town officials and the Board could discuss the matter. The request for Site Plan Review is asking for increased height based on stormwater and environmental bonuses, but the sticking point turned out to be, once again, the parking. The proponent, Rojo’s owner John Shalbey, withdrew his application in the fall when it looked like the Board wasn’t going to pass his reduced parking plan of about 60 spaces for 96 units – well below the MBTA Communities Act Overlay District that allows 1.1 spaces per unit.

He said at the time that the idea was that not every unit was going to have a car. The Board did not buy this argument and feared that residential streets would be swamped with cars using the public street to park.

Shalbey came back with this proposal that used parking stackers to give 38 more spaces and meet the 1.1-space-per-unit requirement. However, as the vote implies, Board members did not believe these counted as parking spaces – an assertion the Building Inspector and Town Counsel did not agree with.

The vote came from a motion from member Joseph Sheehan, who said the original public hearing had some issues with how the Town defines “tandem parking” and how officials categorized stackers as tandem parking.

The lone dissenting vote came from Paciorkowski, who said while he might not necessarily agree with the idea of the parking stackers, both Town Counsel David DeLuca and Building Inspector Gary Pelletier had stated previously that stacked parking counted as tandem parking under the Norwood Zoning Bylaw and state law, and that the Planning Board didn’t really have the jurisdiction to rule otherwise.

“The way I look at this, I am not convinced these are the best things, these lifts or stackers or whatever, but I think the Board, to use a phrase, I think we have to stay in our lane here,” he said. “I just want to refer to the memo we got from the Building Inspector that says, ‘The parking count submitted in the amended plans now complies with the requirement in the bylaw.’ And then I want to refer to a memo we received from Town Counsel Dave DeLuca, that says, ‘At the outset, it should be noted that, consistent with Mass. General Law 40A Section E and the Norwood Zoning Bylaw Section 10.1.1, Mr. Pelletier is tasked with the interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Bylaws, and therefore recommend deferral to his judgment concerning the application of parking spaces and parking structures.’”

Paciorkowski said he feels the Board may be overstepping.

“We may now like these things, we may not know much about them and they may be scary, but the opinion of the Building Inspector, who has vetted this and looked at this and explained to the Board that these are regulated by the state – they’re considered an elevator I believe – that that being said, everything about this project meets the bylaw,” he said. “We might not like it, but it meets the bylaw.”

Sheehan and Planning Board Chair Debbie Holmwood stated they felt Town Meeting should be deciding on stackers as an allowable substitute for parking, not an apparent loophole in the bylaw. Sheehan said he felt that the Building Inspector might have “super powers” if he was to be believed.

“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.”

Shehan said he felt the stackers would not work correctly, or be too much of a hassle for residents who may use them, and that would lead to residents parking on the street.

Paciorkowski said he might well agree, but that doesn’t mean the Board should make the applicant, Rojo’s owner John Shalbey, suffer for a lack of clarity in the law. He said he hopes the Board will be legally specific in showing what bylaw the applicant is not meeting, implying this could be a lawsuit for the Town.

Advertisement

“It’s just my opinion, but I just want to make sure we are clear on what bylaw you are denying,” he said.

The Norwood Zoning Bylaw does in fact mention stacked parking spaces, but strictly speaking, only in the Boston Providence Highway District (BPH) – which this project is not in – and the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) which this project is in (only just).

However, it would seem that this would not apply, since this is a strictly residential property, and the rules are for mixed-use buildings. The regulations, found on page 120 of the Zoning Bylaw – https://tinyurl.com/2dy4yzf5 – state that it would only be allowed to replace conventional parking if an attendant is on duty.

However, Holmwood pointed out that it appears the definition of “stacked” in the bylaw – at least in pictures – shows cars parked directly in front of and beside each other.

“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, after we went through all the machinations of [the MBTA Communities Zoning Act] to say, ‘Now we can have lifts.’ I think this is clear as day; we said 1.1 spaces.”