After Year of Deliberation, 54 Loomis Redevelopment Gets Nod

By Kim Siebert MacPhail

A unanimous vote of approval by the Planning Board on May 20 ended nearly a year of trial and error redesign proposals for 54 Loomis Street owner David Cerundulo and his redevelopment team, the Tambone Investment Group. The property is the first in the Depot Park Overlay district—established by Town Meeting in 2006—to apply for a special permit to proceed with reconstruction plans that, in this instance, will replace a 1-story, 50-year old industrial building with two 2-story structures—one with a mix of retail and residential, the other entirely residential.

[See the most recent article about the project by visiting https://thebedfordcitizen.org/2013/03/21/condos-possible-at-54-loomis-but-neighbors-planning-board-say-designs-not-there-yet/]

Residential units in the plan total 19: 10 two-bedroom units, including two townhouse duplexes and 9 two-bedroom condominium units. The retail space on the ground floor of the so-called “A Building,” which fronts on Loomis Street, contains 2,860 square feet. The Tambone team stated that the height has come down considerably –from one 3-story building to two 2 story buildings— and that the number of units has dropped from 30 to 19, a 40% decrease. One bedroom units are expected to be priced at $275,000; two bedroom units at $325,000; and townhouses at $345,000. The design team confirmed that as condos units, instead of rentals, higher quality design and detail would be used.

Several earlier iterations of the redevelopment plans resulted in Cerundulo and the design team being sent back to the drawing board following strong neighborhood and Planning Board input that called for a proposal in scale and harmony with the area’s “vernacular.” Additionally, abutters asked the team to consider owner-occupied condominiums rather than rental units; citizens and Planning Board members were also concerned that project could attract a large number of families with school age children. On May 20, although some residents continued to express dissatisfaction with the size of the project as presented, others— including the Planning Board— were mollified by the fact that the project had been sufficiently revised with previous criticisms in mind.

While the newly revised plans did not satisfy everyone, several in the audience voiced favorable opinions for the latest designs and scaled-down buildings.

Ken Larson, a resident with property and business interests in the Depot area, expressed the opinion that the “overall massing” of the buildings proposed for 54 Loomis was “not bad.”

“You’re moving in the right direction,” Larson said. “I’m sympathetic to [those who think there’s too much glass on the retail spaces] but design is easy to change. What you’ve presented is more fitting to the area.”

Kristina Philipson of Hartford Street added, “I feel that the way Loomis Street looks near Hartford Street right now is esthetically very unattractive. It’s not welcoming; it just seems like a dead space to me. From an aesthetic standpoint, for creating a sense of community, I think this is the way to go. I’d rather have something like this than an ugly, industrial building. I would like to see our area revitalized.”

“We want the village-style [that the Depot Overlay promised],” came a comment from the audience, “not housing projects.”

Brian O’Donnell, a long-term Bedford resident, said that from his perspective the Depot Park area is continuing to change, as it has over time, but now in a positive way. “Having seen this area of town in many iterations over the years, I recognize the concerns that people have. At its low point, we saw this as a redemption center—a place where people would bring in bottles and cans. In a prior generation, we saw this as an ice hockey rink that was operating seven days a week, early in the morning until relatively late in the evening. This is a neighborhood that used to have to deal with a school bus barn, not where it is now on Railroad Avenue but at the other end, on the Great Road, coming right down Webber Avenue.

“Looking at a little bit longer range picture, this is an advancement, compared to what could be done there, what the property owner has the right to do. [By all reports], the property owner has been a relatively good steward of the property there. . . . The first [design] that you showed us was ugly, but you’ve come a long way,” O’Donnell concluded.

However, others in attendance did not share positive opinions of the project. Additional vehicles in an already congested area of town that is rife with cut-through traffic was the theme of one concern; parking was another. The size of the buildings and total number of units, although reduced from 30 to 19 over the past year, was still seen by some to be too large.

“I think the project is too big, too many units,” said Renu Bostwick of Hartford Street. “Nineteen families moving in is doubling our neighborhood. Have you considered making the back building smaller and increasing the green space? Could we shrink the whole thing down?”

“I just want you to keep in mind when you vote, the quality of life of the current residents,” requested Ellen Powers of Hartford Street. “That is part of the obligation of the town, too. It should be a win-win for residents, town, and developer.”

“I would second that,” said Loomis Street resident Dan Brasgol, “If this passes, the only thing that [will happen] is [that] our quality of life and property values will plummet. We’ll move and that will be sad for us. I hope you don’t vote ‘yes.’ “

“I have a question for the neighbors,” posed Planning Board Chair Jeff Cohen. “How many units is not too many units?”

“Six,” some residents said. “Seven,” came another reply. “I think you might find some of us would actually prefer it to stay commercial,” added another resident, with several others in agreement. “It’s all commercial property, let’s keep it commercial.”

“The town does not have to approve this just because the developer wants this,” said Loomis Street resident Joy Kenen. “We had a development trying to come down on the other end of Loomis Street; they wanted 16 condominiums. We didn’t want them. They ended up putting in a duplex because it fit in better. This is industrial—I think a lot of us would be happy with industrial.”

“I think we have a problem with the bylaw,” another neighbor said. “It was written too loosely, so now these folks are coming in here, presenting something that—by the law—fits, but you see a room full of people here [who don’t want this to happen]. Anybody in town you talk to says, ‘I can’t believe this could happen—that this could possibly go through.’ Did you picture that you’d be here, years [after the bylaw was passed], looking at a [large] housing building sitting in the middle of the neighborhood? I am curious to know what you all [members of the Planning Board] think.”

The Planning Board then considered whether the redevelopment proposal met the spirit and intent of the overlay district bylaw and concurred that it did. They discussed conditions for approval of the project, including types of outdoor lighting, whether to limit the kinds of retail uses allowed and hours of operation, the administration of two affordable units in perpetuity, and bike accommodations.

Before the vote of the Planning Board, member Lisa Mustapich said to the development team, “I wish that you had come in at the beginning [with something] that was more palatable than with something that was out-of-the-park [unacceptable]. . . .It was a bit like pulling teeth to modify the architecture, but thank you for doing that. That said, you’ve improved the architecture greatly. . . .I was not in favor of this at first; it was untenable to me. You are first in modifying this neighborhood and I do look at this area holistically. I’m hoping this will generate a rebirth.”

Planning Board member Amy Lloyd spoke of the need for housing options for downsizers as well as for young people starting out. “There’s an underserved market here in Bedford of middle-income seniors who want to stay in this town but can’t afford to. . . . It may be that you end up with neighbors who are already neighbors. . . . Nothing stays static. There will be change on this property and all those decaying properties [in the Loomis Street area] no matter what. . . . We are in a situation at this point where perfection is the enemy of the good and I don’t want to see us end up with falling-down buildings that are just going to sit there and rot.”

Chair of the Planning Board Jeff Cohen echoed other board members and added that the 54 Loomis Street project should be seen as a prototype rather than a model. “We are here to vote your concerns, that is true,” Cohen said as he addressed the audience. “But there are also this property owner’s concerns to address. This is a far and away better project than it was when it began. This is a destination in Bedford. I’ve heard it is the most visited area in town now. The bikepath and park have turned into a big draw. I also like the housing opportunities that it presents. It’s going to attract homeowners who are presently priced out of Bedford.

“It does meet the intent and the spirit of the bylaw. It’s not perfect but I think it does do that,” Cohen concluded. “This has not been an easy one.”

Cohen also informed the audience that the Planning Board’s vote to approve the project could be challenged by application to the Superior Land Court within 30 days of completion of the written decision. Planning Director Glenn Garber assured abutters and neighbors that they would be kept informed, as they have during the past year that the project has unfolded.