Love’s site plan wins approval
Published on September 29th, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - In a 5-0 vote, the town’s Board of Selectmen unanimously approved a site plan for the renovation of the Love’s Furniture building last Friday night.
Introducing the highly esteemed plan to redevelop the dilapidated structure into approximately 7000 square feet of first floor retail space capped by 48 residential condominiums, Burlington-based attorney Mark Vaughan immediately addressed what is widely seen as the project’s only drawback — limiting parking.
According to Vaughan, as a condition of the Planning Board’s recent issuance of a special permit for the project, local developer Joe Cunningham agreed to dedicate at least 82-parking spaces for the renovation.
Adding that the preexisting, non-conforming building technically required no additional parking — as it’s grandfathered in for 233 spaces — the local attorney characterized the agreement as more than adequate.
“We’re redeveloping an existing property and under the bylaws, we’re able to take credit for the parking at the existing site. So theoretically, we don’t require any parking,” Vaughan explained.
“I think what we’re proposing does work. It’s one parking spot per bedroom which I think is consistent with the needs of downtown space. I honestly think we’re doing the town a favor with parking,” the Riemer and Braunstein attorney added.
With the site currently containing no parking spaces, the petitioner proposed obtaining the 82-spot total in one of two ways: 1) by lining the back of the property with 46 parking spaces and constructing an on-site parking deck with 36 spots or 2) utilizing the 46 spots on the property and obtaining the 36-space balance at an off-site location within 600 feet of the development.
With Selectman Bob Sweeney indicating that he’d prefer to see the parking-deck, the Selectmen endorsed that option, requiring the petitioner to come back for an amended site-plan if the petitioner shifted toward the off-site plan.
Opining that the project’s parking proposal would still exacerbate an already space-strapped downtown area, several residents appealed to the Selectmen to require additional spots — specifically the 19 spaces that would normally be required for the retail space.
“As a resident and an abutter, I really think the 19 spaces should be required,” said Warren St. resident Joanne Oneil. “We already have the glut of parking from Felicia’s, KroMels, and the [Stoneham] Theatre. This has really created a diminished quality of life for the people in the area. It’s ruined the residential atmosphere at the end of Warren and Maple Streets.”
Dissenting with Vaughan’s view that the redevelopment’s use would be less parking intensive, Oneil also claimed that the site would house a constant population of people, a situation differing greatly from the fluctuating customer-group that frequented the former furniture store.
“In the former Love’s Furniture, they didn’t have a constant population of people in their building. They might have had 48 people come in over a five-day period. And that’s a big difference between the two uses,” argued Oneil. “You really need to think about the people who live in this area. To not provide parking for these businesses at this time is unthinkable for us.”
Agreeing with Oneil that the parking proposal fell short of what was necessary, Elmhurst Rd. resident Edie Previdi claimed that the Selectmen were setting a poor standard that would haunt the town as more Main St. properties proposed residential uses.
“You know and I know that there’s two other businesses in town who want to do the same thing and you can’t discriminate and give it to one and not the other. I think you’re setting a very poor standard here,” Previdi commented.
Patting himself on the back for his redevelopment of the RCN building adjacent to the Love’s building — an unmanned facility that requires zero parking — Cunningham remarked that he has done much to alleviate the parking situation in the square.
“There’s 75-spaces in the square that aren’t being used because of the use of this building. I understand this woman’s concerns about Warren St., but that section really isn’t part of the area here. I really don’t foresee anybody parking there,” the local developer said.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!