By Michael Coughlin Jr.
During the monthly Gove Street Citizens Association (GSCA) meeting on Monday, Oct. 24, attendees were presented with a proposal to add a roof deck to a recently renovated three-family building at 229 Maverick Street – the catch? The roof deck has already been built.
Attorney Derric Small cited that the roof deck – which was built without the proper permits – was built due to a miscommunication between the developer and contractor.
Small, who represents the developer, explained that during the development at 229 Maverick Street, the developer also had an ongoing project at 92 Bennington Street that involved roof decks.
“When the 92 Bennington Street project was approved with its roof decks, there was communication with the contractor that the roof deck was approved, but it wasn’t very clear as to which roof deck the developer was referring to,” said Small.
“They ended up building a roof deck here at 229 [Maverick Street] on a conversation that was approved, but it was misunderstood that the developer was referring to the project at 92 Bennington Street.”
This project was actually presented to the GSCA in the Spring of 2021 and was struck down by a vote of 7-6 to make matters more interesting. Furthermore, there were no updates to the project’s design since it was voted on in the spring of 2021.
“The only difference is the buildings beside were not developed yet,” said Small.
When the presentation was opened to questions, some attendees were confused about how something like this could happen, considering the developer’s experience.
A member of the development team, Meggan Ayers, was present at the meeting and has been in development for about four years. She also works with her father, who has about 35 years of experience in development. Ayers stated that in the past, the developers had done work at places like 231 Maverick Street and 96 Cottage Street, among others.
The information regarding previous projects prompted GSCA Board Member Chen Cao to ponder, “Maybe it is just my naivety around this – it seems like the developer has lots of experience kind of going through the process of, you know, requesting or developing in the neighborhood, so I was kind of curious how the deck was constructed or was it just purely a miscommunication.”
Both Small and Ayers reiterated that it was a simple misunderstanding that caused the erection of the roof deck.
“I was trying to run these projects simultaneously – clearly made a rather large error in doing so, and so this was purely a miscommunication just saying in excitement, ‘yep, we are all set the deck has been approved; go ahead’ because in my mind I’m thinking about 92 Bennington not thinking about 229 [Maverick Street], so that was on me,” said Ayers.
Although it may seem improbable that an error like this could happen, Ayers did emphasize that the roof deck was involved in the initial planning, and efforts were made to go through the proper process to build it legally before the accident.
As for the future of the roof deck, the proposal will have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval.
“At the end of the day, if the Zoning Board of Appeals says no, then Derric [Small] knows that the developer will have to bring this down,” said East Boston Liaison Nathalia Benitez.
Not only will the proposal have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals, but it will also be put up for a GSCA vote. However, that vote did not occur at Monday’s meeting due to a GSCA guideline that there must be at least two meetings on a subject before a vote takes place.
The delayed vote caused a civilized discussion to turn confrontational, as Small was confused as to why this meeting does not count as the second, as there was a short presentation about it in July.
“It was not clear to the community that this roof deck was already built. That was something you said kind of absent-minded – it just was not clear, and that’s why we have been having these conversations over e-mail for a few months now,” said GSCA Board Member Neelesh Batra to Small.
“You know the issues at hand. You already know them, so don’t come to me now and ask why this is happening; you know why it is happening,” Batra added.
However, Small did mention that the roof deck was already built back in the July meeting – which Batra acknowledged. In July, Small also showed some of the same photographs he did at Monday’s meeting.
Overall the situation has been sticky, to say the least, and none more sticky than for the unit owner Scott Von Stein who pleaded with attendees to think before they eventually vote.
“I’m a first-time home buyer. When I bought this place, I had no idea this was even an issue. I assumed that everything was right – my lawyer agreed to the sale and never brought this up as an issue,” said Von Stein.
Von Stein indicated that if the roof deck is not approved, he will have to seek litigation to make sure the developer foots the bill if it were to be removed.
“If this isn’t approved, this is really going to financially damage me, so I am just kind of asking from a human perspective to kind of keep that in mind – an actual human being lives here that has no association with the developer whatsoever,” said Von Stein.
“When people vote on this, I am just asking please keep that in mind.”