NORWOOD – The controversial redevelopment proposal for 55 Lennox Street returned to the Norwood Planning Board on Monday night, bringing with it a high-tech solution to a lingering problem: parking.
In a packed meeting at the Norwood Senior Center, developer John Shalbey of Lenox LLC presented a revised plan for a 96-unit multifamily building. The project, located in the Central Business District and the MBTA Communities Multifamily Overlay District, had previously stalled due to concerns from neighbors.
“At our previous meetings, it became abundantly clear that parking was a central concern,” Shalbey told the Board. “The Chair’s comment on September 8th summarized the issue perfectly: ‘We like the project, but we don’t like the parking.'”.
To resolve the deficit without reducing the unit count, the new proposal incorporates mechanical parking lifts, often called “stackers.” This system allows two cars to park in a single vertical space, bringing the total parking count to 106 spaces, fully complying with the town’s zoning requirement of 1.1 spaces per unit.
Shelby defended the technology as “well-established and reliable,” citing installations in nearby communities like Wellesley, Brookline (pictured above), and Winchester. “These are safe, regulated, and professionally maintained systems,” he assured the room, noting they would include battery backups for power outages.
However, the technology sparked significant debate among residents and Board members. Questions arose regarding the time required to retrieve vehicles (estimated by the applicant at roughly 17 seconds for descent) and the logistics of daily use.
“If these things don’t work… people are going to say, ‘I’m not going to park there,'” said one Board member, expressing concern that frustrated tenants might spill over onto neighborhood streets.
Beyond the parking, the Board reviewed a special permit request for an additional story of building height. Under the Norwood Zoning Bylaw, developers can earn this bonus by meeting stringent environmental standards.
Project civil engineer Scott Henderson detailed the site’s stormwater management plan, which he described as “unusually large”. Henderson stated the system is designed to remove 100% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and over 91% of phosphorus from runoff, exceeding state and local requirements.
“We are providing 100%… We’re capturing runoff from every impervious surface on this site,” Henderson said, explaining that an underground infiltration system would contain contaminants and reduce runoff leaving the property by 75% compared to current conditions.
Public comment revealed a sharp divide in community sentiment.
Several residents, including abutters on Lennox Street and Railroad Avenue, voiced strong opposition. Concerns ranged from the visual impact of the building, described by one resident as a potential “monstrosity,” to fears about traffic and the practicality of the parking lifts.
“It’s not feasible if you really think about it,” said one resident regarding the shared lift system. “The impact on the neighborhood is people get fed up with it and now they’re suddenly parking throughout the neighborhood.”
Conversely, proponents argued the project is essential for Norwood’s future. Adam Stivaletta, a Greenwich Road resident, urged the Board to approve the plan. “I’d rather be leaking [oil] on the lift getting collected than in the driveway… and ended up in the environment,” he argued, countering environmental concerns.
Andrew Jones of Myrtle Street highlighted the alignment with the town’s sustainability and climate change goals. “If you care about building a more sustainable Norwood, this is the kind of development that we should be approving,” Jones said, pointing to the heat island mitigation and stormwater improvements.
Kathy Flanagan, a Railroad St resident observed the vast majority of those who voiced support for this project do not live in the area of Lenox St. “I’m listening to the addresses of everybody who’s in support of this. None of them live in the neighborhood. They’re not even in a mile range of the neighborhood” Flanagan said.
Throughout the evening, the legal limitations of the Planning Board’s authority were a recurring theme. Board member Ernie Paciorkowski emphasized that the project seeks no waivers for parking and appears to meet the letter of the law.
“If it meets the bylaw, we can’t turn it down just because we don’t like the color of the building,” Paciorkowski noted, reminding the room that the Board’s purview is a strict compliance review. “The Board has to go by the bylaw.”.
Town officials also clarified that the safety and operation of the lifts fall under the state building code and the Board of Elevator Regulations, not local zoning.
After a lengthy debate, the Board voted to continue the hearing to January 5, 2025, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing portion of the process has not been closed, but the Board indicated they would move toward deliberation. While no new testimony or questions will be taken at the next meeting, the Board will review the final details before issuing a vote. -RD
Stacked parking? That’s a good one. Lose power and you can’t get your car. The bottom car needs to be moved to access the upper car. They probably require 24/7 staffing. It’s delusional that they would even suggest that. The correct approach would be underground parking or just have fewer units.