SHELBURNE FALLS — Does the village really have a parking problem? And, if it doesn’t, will it have one in the future, as more businesses and apartments are developed on Bridge Street?
These ambiguities cast a shadow over a parking forum on whether Zoning Bylaw requirements for building owners to provide off-street parking for tenants and businesses are stymieing growth in Shelburne Falls.
The Planning Board called for an informal meeting to get feedback on a proposal to require fewer parking spaces for those who would redevelop downtown village property or reuse the older buildings.
The Shelburne side of the village now has a large parking lot behind stores and shops from Main and Bridge streets to Bridge and Water streets, plus 2-hour diagonal parking on Bridge Street and Deerfield Avenue.
The current bylaw — for all parts of town — requires building owners to provide the following off-street parking spaces: two parking spaces for every apartment dwelling; one parking space per motel guest; one space per employee plus one customer parking space for every 150 square feet of retail floor space. However, the bylaw stipulates: “The (Zoning Board of Appeals or ZBA) may waive or modify this requirement, in part or in its entirety, if it is determined that to do so is in the public interest” and is not a substantial departure from the intent and purpose of the bylaw.
The proposed bylaw revision was to reduce apartment parking spaces to only one space for each one-bedroom and studio apartment. Instead of requiring businesses to build more parking spaces, the proposal for the Village Commercial District stated “no new parking spaces shall be required with respect to new structures or uses, additions to existing structures or uses or change of use … provided that any existing parking spaces may not be eliminated without replacement on the same site.”
ZBA members Joseph Palmeri, John Taylor and Noah Grunberg said their board wanted guidance on how to interpret the bylaw, but were concerned about revisions that were so lenient they would undermine the board’s abilities to uphold standards that retain the village’s character.
“I can imagine a nightclub coming in that’s going to bring in 100 cars,” said Grunberg. “There does need to be controls — some wiggle room — so if a plan comes before the board, the board can say: ‘This is beyond the normal line.’”
Greater Shelburne Falls Area Business Association Director Carmella Lanza-Weil remarked that apartments in historic downtown neighborhoods in Baltimore and other cities often have residential parking permits for lots that are further away from the apartments. To prevent using more of the downtown village area for parking, she suggested setting up residential parking away from Bridge Street, with possible shuttles that could take residents and visitors from Cross Street and the Arms Academy parking lots to the village center.
“We don’t want this to be Baltimore,” replied ZBA Chairman Joseph Palmeri. “We don’t want this to be New York City. We want this to be our sweet little village.”
He said if there are parking problems now, “What’s going to happen when the (former) Mole Hollow building gets up and going again?”
“My idea is, you have a firm designation for parking, and then you list the exceptions — a strong bylaw with exceptions that can be tweaked,” said ZBA alternate John Taylor.
Taylor mentioned that a proposal to convert a former Water Street nursing home into a bed-and-breakfast several years ago “stirred up the pot” and ultimately was dropped because of the parking issues. Taylor said the parking requirement was more directed toward commercial development along the Mohawk Trail. “The Shelburne Falls village development got overlooked,” he said.
Taylor said the current requirement is absurd for the village area, but “the ZBA should have a little bit of control. If you set the bar at zero, the ZBA will have no control.”
“When I was on the Planning Board in the 1980s, property values were going up 1 percent or 2 percent a month,” said Josh Simpson, who is now a partner in the redevelopment of the Singley Furniture lot. “We were terrified that all that land was going to be housing developments. … We are subject to the winds of economic tides that go by.”
The old Singley’s Furniture store complex on Deerfield and Bridge streets is beyond saving, and the investors hope to replace it with a mixed-use building of retail shops on the ground floor and apartments on an upstairs floor. The partners have been concerned about the bylaw, which could require them to create 20 new parking spaces for apartment dwellers and retail customers, unless they get a ZBA waiver.
“There’s a cost to doing nothing,” said Simpson. He said the old Singley building could collapse in the next year or two. “There’s enough space on that building site to put in six or seven parking spaces,” he remarked. But I’m not sure that’s the best use of that land. And whatever replaces the Swan lot or Singley building is going to improve valuation over what there is now.”
Without a ZBA waiver, the redevelopment of the old Swan Building lot would have required at least 16 spaces.
Swan lot’s new owner, Molly Cantor, must create four parking spaces on the lot, when she builds a new pottery gallery and studio there. Cantor said she had considered adding apartments on a second floor, but dropped the idea because more parking spaces would be needed.
Several ideas were proposed that had less to do with zoning revisions but might help ease parking issues. One idea was to set a two- or three-hour time limit on parking in the lot behind Bridge Street, to provide more turnover and keep business employees from parking there. Another idea is to improve access and signs directing people to a parking lot down Deerfield Avenue, behind the old Mole Hollow Candle building.