Planning Board urges tougher parking restrictions in town
Published on October 13th, 1999
STONEHAM, MA - The Planning Board reached out to the business community on Wednesday night, gleaning input on the Town Meeting warrant article that seeks to revise the town's parking bylaw.
Several Chamber of Commerce members attended the meeting in order to express input on the proposed changes to the existing bylaw. The meeting preceded a public hearing on the article, scheduled for October 20.
The article seeks to delete sections 6.3 and 6.4 regarding off-street parking and off-street loading respectively, and substitute more detailed and restrictive requirements but with added flexibility not currently allowed for under existing bylaw.
The board has worked on revising the bylaw for the past year and, with the help of Community Development Director Steve Sadwick, has examined the parking bylaws of other towns, such as Lexington, Winchester, Wakefield, Andover, Melrose, Reading and North Reading.
Some attendees initially expressed concern that they only recently became aware of the article, and Stoneham resident and business owner Joe Cunningham asked the board about possibly postponing the article.
"I agree with Joe's request. It took you a year...It's going to take us some time...to digest," concurred local businessman Dale Halchak.
"Tonight's meeting is informational...We're not required to give you notice like a public hearing...The fact that (you) just found out does not change the fact that the board has been working on this for a year," stated board member Frank Federico. "(To postpone) seems unfair to the general process."
"There really isn't anything here that's radically different from what we (currently) have," stated board member Stephen Catalano, and he urged discussion on those points that raised the most concern.
The proposed new rules
The article seeks to increase the requirements for various commercial uses including the following: for business, professional and administrative offices, the article proposes one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area, up from every 400 square feet; restaurants are proposed at one space for every three seats, up from one for four seats; retail establishments are proposed at one space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area rather than for every 300 of selling space; churches and other places of public assembly have increased to one space per four seats according to maximum occupancy; and hotels have increased to one for each rental room, plus one per three people at maximum occupancy of assembly room, plus 33 percent.
In addition, the article includes parking requirements for the following areas not currently addressed by bylaw: secondary, college and technical schools; day-care centers and preschools; congregate, assisted living and long term care residential facilities; and warehouse space.
Sadwick explained that much of the increase in commercial areas seek to accommodate parking for employees.
Stoneham resident and business owner Alan Melkonian suggested, however, that rather than using the gross floor space determination, the board consider kicking back the proposed requirement by using rentable square footage.
Local businessman Al Symes agreed, stating that in most commercial buildings, a figure somewhere between 15 and 20 percent is generally used to determine unusable space for which parking is not required.
But Niewenhous countered that employing a usable space determination, instead of what the board proposes, was too subjective.
"My feeling is gross (floor space) is a good way...as long as there is an allowance for dead space...This takes the argument out of it."
"Gross floor space is really the only objective method," agreed Federico. However, the board considered looking into defining gross floor space more specifically, at some point, for allowances not currently identified, including elevator shafts, stairwells and hallways.
With respect to residential parking requirements, after much discussion, the board agreed to scale back the proposed requirement for greater than two-family structures, which called for an increase from two to 2.5.
"The purpose (of the proposed 2.5) is to provide adequate parking without overflow onto the streets," explained Catalano.
"Two would be absolutely adequate," Symes argued, adding that the majority of condominium and apartment complexes in town were built under the old bylaw which required 1.5 spaces per unit.
A comprise was struck to best address the situation, and the article will now propose two parking spaces for the first 15 dwelling units in a structure, with 2.5 spaces required for the 16th unit and beyond.
Renovation to an existing structure would not in and of itself fall under the new requirement.
Sadwick explained that if the renovation does not increase the requirement for parking, then that building would be grandfathered under existing parking provisions. However, he stated that if the renovation intensifies a building's use, the new parking requirements would kick in.
A business "relief provision"
The board pointed out that a clear benefit of the proposal is its "relief provision," whereby it allows for special permits to be granted in the Central Business District.
The board referred to the special permit provision as an experiment and stated that if it proves successful in the Central Business District, the board could consider expanding the use to other areas.
Other concerns the board committed to investigating relevant to the proposal were credit for parking within a building (for auto service businesses, for example) and drop-off areas for day-care centers and preschools.
A public hearing on the article is scheduled for Oct. 20. Town Meeting is scheduled for October 25.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!