Planning Board Tables Hearing on Potential Rivian Expansion

The Planning Board wants more information on a proposal to store 124 electric vehicles, along with a smaller Park and Fly operation, at 305 Eastern Ave.

Last week, the board tabled the hearing on the site plan review and recommendation for a special permit to the ZBA for the proposal until later this month. Board members stated they wanted more information on landscaping, lighting, and security for the project.

In addition, several board members said they would like more concrete information about the planned use of the electrical vehicle storage spaces by the Rivian electric vehicle company.

There was some confusion during the 90 minute hearing about just what was being proposed for the site. Eventually, the applicant, Milad Farahani, and his attorney stated that the plan for the lot is to develop it for electric vehicle storage for Rivian, which operates a facility at 25 Griffin Way.

Attorney Anthony Rossi noted that there are still a number of moving parts to the plan, since his client is still in negotiations to purchase 305 Eastern Ave.

However, Rossi said if all goes according to plan, Rivian will enter into a lease to use 124 spaces for electric vehicle storage. He said the lot is about a quarter mile from Rivian’s Griffin Way facility, and that the company needs the expansion space. An additional 20 spaces would be leased out to an outside vendor for use as a park and fly operation, Rossi said.

Outside the bounds of the special permit and site plan review are 51 parking spaces and a 39,000 square foot building on the property. Rossi said the plan is for the current occupant of the building, Glyptal paint, to remain on site for now.

However, down the line, Farahani said he plans to renovate the building for potential use by Rivian if they are seeking to expand.

City land use planner John DePriest stated that the city did not support the proposed use of 305 Eastern Ave. for electric vehicle storage and a park and fly operation.

“The city undertook a waterfront study and ultimately ended up with this area being rezoned,” said DePriest. “The goals of that study were for job density.”

Rossi noted several times that it would be difficult to develop the property for other residential or commercial uses, given that it is bordered by the commuter rail and a parcel that was recently approved as a warehouse facility.

Farahini stated that while the parking operation would only employ a handful of people, it would bring in income that would allow him to redevelop the building on the site, potentially bringing in more employees and a better use.

He also noted that the redevelopment of the Eastern Avenue property would ensure that Rivian, a Fortune 500 company, remains in Chelsea.

“Rivian could leave Chelsea because there is not enough parking where they are now,” Farahini said.

Several Planning Board members raised the potential of issuing a special permit for a limited time frame of five to 10 years so the city could revisit the use of the parcel on Chelsea Creek in the future.

“I’m very confused by this proposal,” said city planner Karl Allen. “We are glad that Rivian is in the city of Chelsea, but what we permitted is a repair facility for electric vehicles. They are now talking about storing new vehicles, which sounds like a car dealership to me.”

If Rivian’s need is for additional car storage, Allen said the city would be happy to work with them to figure out where in Chelsea that would work best.

“The current zoning does not allow the storage of electric vehicles,” said Allen. “They have added a small number of park and fly spaces in order to qualify as an airport-related use. That seems to be an accessory use, not the primary use, and we should be permitting the primary use.”

Allen said the city already has a number of park and fly operations, and that it was not something Chelsea is encouraging to be increased. He added that it might be more effective to submit a consolidated plan for the parking along with the expansion of the building.

“It seems to me that there is a sufficient amount of confusion and a lack of detail in the proposal,” said Planning Board Chair Tuck Willis.

With the hearing tabled, Rossi said the applicant can talk to the potential tenant of the property to be able to provide more details and a more definitive plan at the next Planning Board meeting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *