Developers propose converting 105 Cabot Street data center to self‑storage; board seeks building‑inspector guidance and fiscal analysis

Developers seeking to reuse a former data center at 105 Cabot Street presented a preliminary plan to convert the building to self‑storage and asked for early feedback from the Planning Board. The applicant and their attorney described the building as unusually large but suitable for storage with limited exterior changes, and they said self‑storage would generate far fewer vehicle trips than many other allowed uses.

Attorney George Gunther and Richard Griffin of RJ Kelly described the property’s history and constraints: the lot was created by an ANR in 2011, a three‑story building was completed in 2013, the building contains roughly “128,750 square feet of floor space” on a 96,889‑square‑foot lot, and the special‑permit decision that allowed the building included a small parking allocation (45 spaces) and a condition limiting on‑site occupancy (“a maximum of 18 people can be on‑site at any given time”). Griffin said, “It’s a very unique building,” and the applicants argued the interior layout and existing utility and power infrastructure make the site more feasible for storage than for many permitted alternative uses.

Planning staff and board members focused on zoning fit, trip generation and the district’s policy goals. Staff noted the New England Business Center zoning does not include a general “self‑storage” use and that previous amendments removed explicit storage language from the wholesale/distribution category. The building commissioner (per staff) had informally viewed the proposal as “akin to a distribution facility,” which the applicants said could be the most straightforward classification under current bylaw categories. Applicants provided an initial unit estimate (about 977 units) and a rough conversion estimate of 88,000–90,000 square feet of rentable storage out of 133,000 gross square feet. Applicant traffic estimates cited the ITE small‑warehouse trip rate (approximately 0.226 trips per thousand sq ft) and argued the use would fall well below the special‑permit vehicle‑trip threshold (0.6 trips per thousand sq ft) used for floor‑area bonuses.

Board members and staff asked for follow‑up information before pursuing formal action: (1) a written, specific building‑inspector interpretation about which bylaw category best fits this reuse; (2) a fiscal comparison of tax revenue (current tax status versus projected tax revenue for a storage facility) and an analysis of the fiscal and traffic impacts for the proposed reuse; and (3) an assessment of whether any targeted, narrowly tailored zoning amendment might allow reuse of this parcel without opening the wider district to storage uses. Planning staff suggested a staged public process and recommended bringing the building commissioner to a future meeting so the commissioner can state his interpretation in public. No permit application or zoning amendment was approved at the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant and planning staff will coordinate to arrange a joint meeting with the building commissioner, prepare fiscal and tax‑revenue comparisons and assess narrow zoning‑change options versus an interpretation under an existing use category. Planning staff proposed a tentative work plan for public outreach and possible zoning analysis in the coming months.