ZBA grants parking relief for Fallon Rd. self-storage
Published on May 28th, 2008
STONEHAM, MA - The town's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) challenged whether a proposed Fallon Road self-storage warehouse contained enough parking spaces to accommodate the use.
ZBA members, none of whom opposed the use itself, continued its deliberations last week until this Thursday, May 29, at 7 p.m.
During that one week time-frame, the Zoning Board planned to visit the Fallon Road site, located in South Stoneham nearby Park and Marble Streets, to determine whether more than 9 spaces should be placed at the planned 95,000 square foot self-storage facility.
"Whether it's seven, 17, or 70 [parking spots], you need to come back here. For some reason, nine [spaces] doesn't sit right," said ZBA Chairman Jim Juliano. "We're not trying to block the project, we just want to make sure it's done right."
"I feel some confusion about where this is sitting," ZBA member Gerard Cunningham commented. "I'd like to see this project go through, but I think we need to do a site visit."
Based on the proposal, the 95,000 square foot building would be erected at the front portion of the 16.2 acre property, closest to the I-93 off-ramps and Fallon Road.
The site, which formerly housed the headquarters of the A.W. Chesterton Company, is located nearby the Winchester line and the MDC pool nearby Friendly's Restaurant. Notably, the commercial plot had been eyed for a 133,000 square foot Home Depot last year, but that arrangement fell through due to a change in housing market conditions.
Wilmington's The Richmond Company, which purchased the parcel for $7.4 million, has proposed that nine parking spots be placed in a front lot and four other spaces at a loading dock area.
The town's zoning bylaws require 128 parking spots, triggering the need to appear before the ZBA for relief. The petitioner is contending that because of the proximity of wetlands to the proposed parking area, a hardship exists that prevents them from meeting the zoning regulations.
The Stoneham Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, and Conservation Commission also need to weigh-in and approve the project before it can break ground.
According to attorney Mark Vaughan, representing the applicants, his clients had compiled data showing that nine spaces would adequately serve the planned self-storage use.
The Burlington-based lawyer further referred to a similar facility along Montvale Avenue in Stoneham, which also has approximately 10 parking spaces.
Richmond Company principal David Armanetti estimated that the building, to be disguised as a high-end office building, would contain between 600 to 650 storage units.
With those projections, Armanetti and Vaughan suggested that the site would draw between 40 to 50 new vehicular trips per day.
"It's not as if you're going to have more than nine people coming to the site at once," said Vaughan. "We think of all the uses you could possibly choose from - that makes sense - this would have a minimal impact in terms of traffic."
According to ZBA member Laurence Rotondi, he felt the comparison to the Montvale Avenue self-storage facility was unfair, as that site had much more pavement to accommodate a potential overflow of customers.
In addition, the safety officer also pointed out that the Montvale Avenue business has space in front of each ground-level storage compartment for a car to park.
"When cars come in to load and unload, sometimes there is more than nine cars. I'm just asking where all these cars are going to go," Rotondi said. "I can see having nine [spaces] in front, but I'm more concerned about the room in back where [the loading dock] is."
According to Armanetti, in order to create a project that was aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding neighborhood, the building's design specifically excluded multiple ground-level storage units that could be accessed from outside the structure.
Instead, customers would access the building from either the front, or the loading dock area. The five-story building would be equipped with elevators.
"This is one of those buildings that are user driven. So if you don't have enough parking, they're not going to come back. Everybody has a 30-day tenancy at will," the Richmond Company representative responded.
According to Winchester resident Mike Buckley, he was more concerned with what was planned for the remainder of the 16.2 acre site than with the self-storage warehouse.
In particular, the Eugene Drive resident worried that the developer was taking a piecemeal approach to the property, where another large use would soon be proposed that was inconsistent with the character of the area.
Buckley also questioned whether the applicant had proposed so few spaces at the storage facility in order to retain space for the rest of the site.
"We're trying to plan a storage facility without knowing what's going on the rest of the site," the abutter said. "I think parking spaces are gong to be a premium for whatever [other] tenant goes in there."
Vaughan and Armanetti tried to downplay those concerns, assuring the public that no concrete plans were in place for a future development.
The pair also insisted that regardless of what was ultimately proposed, it would be for a single project that was consistent with the neighboring self-storage use.
"The bottom-line is that we don't have any plans for the rear portion of that property," the Riemer & Braunstein lawyer maintained. "Suffice it to say that we did learn through the last process that we need to learn about what the cumulative effects are."
"As someone who spent $15 million on this property, I'm not going to put something on the front 10 percent of my property that [ruins the development of the rest]," Armanetti
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!