By Adam Swift
Residents of the Meriden Wharf Condominiums appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals last week claiming the proposed new North Suffolk Community Services headquarters on Winnissimett Street does not have enough parking spaces under city zoning regulations.
However, the ZBA ruled that they could not properly overturn the decision, since the project’s zoning was determined by the city solicitor and building inspector and had not previously come before the ZBA. ZBA Chair Janice Tatarka said the board has never before been in the position of ruling against a zoning designation that had been determined by the city.
Tatarka noted that as an educational or non-profit facility, the North Suffolk project is allowed by right under the state’s Dover Amendment.
Brenden Deveney of the Meridian Wharf Condominiums Association on Winnissimett Street laid out the case of why the association believed the North Suffolk Community Services facility should be reclassified under a zoning designation that requires more parking.
“We submitted a request to (Building Inspector) Mike McAteer to enforce the parking regulations for the city; when we didn’t receive that, we appealed it, which is what brought us here today,” said Deveney. “We’re seeking determination that the number of off-street parking spaces provided for the project do not comply with the requirement of the zoning ordinance and requires a variance from the city of Chelsea Zoning Board of Appeals.”
The project in question is on four parcels of land – 5 Winnisimmet, 35 Winnisimmet, 2 Williams, and 10 Williams St., Deveney said. He said the four parcels were being converted to a parking lot for the North Shore Community Services offices and community behavioral health center. The property also includes a smaller research lab with only a few employees.
“The gist of the argument is that I believe there are too few spots in this according to the zoning ordinance, and it has to do with the classification of the building,” said Deveney.
The building should be classified as a clinic, rather than as an office building, Deveney said.
“According to the zoning laws, the number of parking spots for this property is too small, and therefore there should be a zoning board of appeals meeting to allow for public input on the project,” he said.
There were 107 spots approved for the project, and Deveney said the condominium association believes that under the clinic zoning, there should be 160 parking spaces.
Deveney said the condo members were concerned about patients and staff using on-street parking spaces and creating more parking and traffic issues in the neighborhood.
“We have never had this kind of a thing before,” said Tatarka. “Generally, we have relied on what the city is telling us is needed for parking, and if necessary, if parking relief is needed, it comes before us.”
City Solicitor Cheryl Watson-Fisher said the condo association was requesting more parking for the project under what it deemed the zoning classification should be for it.
“But according to the city, the relief was not necessary and therefore the case did not come to us?” Tatarka asked.
Watson-Fisher said the city deemed the classification of the building as a professional office building, which has lower parking requirements than a medical clinic. She said a clinic typically has a number of medical practices under one roof, while a single entity such as North Suffolk Community Services are defined as a professional office use.
“One company is physically occupying this, and there’s nothing physically being done in the offices, it’s more therapy,” said Watson-Fisher.
Under those standards, she said the parking is based on the square footage of the building. She said under zoning, there are only 94 parking spaces required for the lot, and 107 are being provided.
“If it was determined at the beginning of this process that they needed 165 parking spaces and they only had 110, then it would be in front of us,” said Tatarka. “We would rely on the determination of the city and Mike McAteer to tell us what’s needed … Personally, I am uncomfortable not continuing to rely on that expertise.”
ZBA member Arthur Arsenault noted that it was possible that the city’s decision could be taken to land court, at which point there could be a ruling for the ZBA to open a public hearing on the zoning and the parking requirements.