55 Lenox Street redevelopment draws split public reaction; developer presents stacked parking and a large stormwater system

The Planning Board on Dec. 15 heard a lengthy, often emotional public hearing on a proposal to redevelop 55 Lenox Street into a 96‑unit apartment building that would seek a zoning density bonus by exceeding stormwater and heat‑island standards.

Developer John Shelby told the board he revised the project to address parking concerns and now proposes a combination of surface spaces, stacked mechanical parking lifts and 106 total parking spaces to meet the Town's 1.1‑spaces‑per‑unit requirement. "Parking lifts are not experimental," Shelby said, listing multiple Massachusetts municipalities that have permitted similar systems and noting that the lifts are inspected under the state elevator regulations.

Civil engineer Scott Henderson described the stormwater approach in detail and said the design surpasses the bylaw standards the project must meet to earn the additional story envisioned in the special permit. Henderson said the drainage design captures runoff with a subsurface infiltration system and deep‑sump catch basins, claiming the plan would remove the equivalent of 100% of average annual total suspended solids and about 91.7% of annual phosphorus loading from the site; he also said the system provides roughly 19,000 gallons of static storage and is substantially larger than the bare minimum required.

Board members focused on several recurring concerns raised by residents: whether stacked parking spaces reliably count as permanent parking under the zoning definition, how lifts are inspected and maintained, the risk of mechanical outages and the consequences for neighborhood spillover parking, effects on narrow Lenox Street and turning/maneuvering for emergency apparatus, and the ability of the stormwater system to perform under very large storm events.

Building commissioner Gary Pelletier told the board that mechanical lifts and equipment are regulated by the state building and elevator codes and that certificates of occupancy require safety features (fire protection, elevators and hoisting equipment) to be complete and inspected before occupancy. He said the town cannot regulate construction methods that are within the state building code's purview.

Public comment ran more than two hours and split the room. Supporters said the project provides much‑needed housing near transit and local amenities; opponents cited traffic, density, building height, uncertainty about lifts and neighborhood impacts. The applicant and engineers answered questions on maintenance contracts, response times for service calls, battery backup for lifts and the size and inspection regime for the stormwater system.

After extended comment and board discussion about outstanding technical questions, the board voted to close the public hearing and continue the matter for deliberation on Jan. 5 at 7 p.m., allowing the board to consider the record and outstanding follow‑up items rather than accept new testimony.

What to watch for

- The applicant is expected to supply additional technical documentation and respond in writing to board questions about stacked parking operations, service/maintenance contracts, load/clearance limits and final stormwater calculations before the Jan. 5 deliberation. - The board's later votes on the special permit and site‑plan review will turn on whether the design satisfies the bylaw conditions for the density/height bonus and on mitigation for traffic and neighborhood impacts.

(Quotes are taken verbatim from the Planning Board transcript of Dec. 15, 2025.)