City Council rejects plan for parking instead of housing on Nonantum lot

chapelstreet

The owner of 56 Chapel Street wants to put a parking lot there instead of a previously permitted three-family home, but the City Council has rejected that proposal. Photo by Bryan McGonigle

On Dec. 9, the Land Use Committee voted to recommend approval of a non-accessory parking lot and a rebuild of a 10-foot retaining wall at 56 Chapel Road. Last week, the full City Council said ‘no.”

There was already a special permit granted to the property’s previous owner for a three-family home on that site, and the new property owner now wants to make it a parking lot instead, which makes for a manufacturing use in a residential district.

“The petitioner asked to put surface parking there instead of the approved housing,” Councilor Andrea Kelley. chair of Land Use, said, adding that the committee preferred to see housing but if not, then there had to be public green space. Kelley noted that the committee was in agreement that there was plenty of parking in that part of the city already.

That the Council was hesitant to allow a huge parking lot–which would remove three housing units from the city’s planned inventory and create a heat island, and the city is working to get rid of heat islands with green space and trees–should not be shocking. But the surprise was in the fact that the proposal was approved in committee at all.

So, why did Land Use give a green light to a heat island in an area with more than enough parking already?

“At the Dec. 9 meeting, the request was changed to make a ‘horse deal,’ as they called it,” Kelley said.

The deal, Kelley explained, would have the petitioner provide a small area of private open green space at the nearby corner of Silver Lake Avenue and Adams Street.

‘Ocean of asphalt’

But that deal evaporated on the floor of the full City Council, as Council President-elect John Oliver noted that there are already two parking lots next to the property at 56 Chapel St..

“It’s too massive—and I think massive is probably an understatement—parking lots,” he said. It’s an ocean of asphalt. They don’t need this parking. They want parking in front of their front door. And I’m shocked that Land Use approved a project to allow parking that is not an allowed use in a residential-zoned property, to increase parking—surface parking, by the way–to get to somewhere closer to 675 parking spaces that are dramatically underutilized already, and we approved this. I’m just going to say that’s not the Newton that I came to know and love in this chamber. I’m shocked by that.”

Councilor Alison Leary agreed with Oliver’s points, but she voted in favor of the project in the spirit of compromise since the retaining wall needed repair and she didn’t want to see the lot unused and wanted the area to have more green space.

“And I also want to say that the work the Ward 1 counselors, particularly myself and Maria Greenberg, work to get some compromise here, and that is the green space at the corner of Silver Lake and Adam Street, which removes 20 parking spaces and greens them up.”

The parking would have pervious surfaces to mitigate storm water and light colored materials to help deal with heat, as well as a pollinator garden.

“So there has been an effort to green this up to somewhat mitigate the parking issues,” Leary continued. “If we leave this alone, it’s going to remain as it is for I don’t know how long, and we have the neighborhood support for this, and we made a compromise that I think at least mitigates some of the heat impacts. And I also believe that this area is ripe for change, and I don’t think we’ll be looking at a lot of parking lots necessarily well into the future.”

And Councilor Susan Albright urged approval for the sake of making things easier for local businesses in that part of the city.

“We have to support businesses and give them what they want and make sure that they succeed,” Albright said. “And as I understand it, this building will be 50% empty come the summer, and the people who own this lot feel that this parking lot is important to try and get some tenants in that building. And we all know that it’s difficult to get office space rented these days. If this business feels it needs this lot, then I think we should do it.”

Councilor Tarik Lucas was one of the two Land Use members who voted against it.

“The only thing I will add is that I understand that this was a compromise,” he said. “It’s just that I wanted to see more green space. I mean, that parking lot at 85 Bridge Street, you know, it’s 600-and-something parking spaces, and only a handful of them are actually occupied. We should have more green space. There’s plenty of room for it, and for some reason, we fell short on that.”

The discussion managed to sway at least one vote. Councilor Stephen Farrell had voted in favor of it in the Land Use Committee but ended up voting against it in the full Council meeting.

“The land swap itself suggests that more parking isn’t needed,” Farrell said. ”It’s a swap. And more and more, I think about the fact that we need more residential development in this city, and commercial development, than we need more parking lots.”

The item needed 16 votes in favor to pass, but it only got 10, compared with 13 ‘no’ votes. Councilor Leonard Gentile was absent.