By Michael Coughlin Jr.
During its regular monthly meeting last week, the Orient Heights Neighborhood Council (OHNC) voted against a project that would bring eight units to 28-30 Swan Avenue.
This project was initially presented to the council in November and has origins dating back to 2021 when 12 units were proposed for the area. Now, the proposal is to construct two separate “contextual multi-family dwellings,” according to Attorney Richard Lynds, who presented the project.
Each of the proposed buildings would contain four units, which are intended for homeownership and would be sold as condominiums. Additionally, there are plans for a total of eight parking spaces.
Under current zoning, the lots involved in the proposal, which are proposed to be combined and redivided, are zoned in the 2F-5,000 subdistrict. However, under new zoning developed through PLAN: East Boston, the lots are in the East Boston Residential (EBR)-3 subdistrict.
“I think the important part here is to look at the difference between the relief that’s necessary under Article 53 and the relief that will be necessary to the proposed new zoning,” said Lynds.
“For the most part, you can see there are less variances that are necessary with the proposed use,” he added.
The proposal would require variances for the use, side yard, rear yard, floor area ratio, and parking under current zoning. In comparison, the proposal would only require variances for use, rear yard, and open space under the new zoning.
As Lynds’ presentation progressed, he walked through some renderings and other plans and spoke about the changes to the project since 2021. Specifically, he talked about responding to feedback from abutters, in which the buildings are no longer in a three-story style, and roof decks have been removed.
“I think the response has been a little bit more positive to this design as opposed to the previous design that we had,” said Lynds.
When Lynds was wrapping up his presentation, he made a statement asking for support for the project, which caused a bit of a stir during the meeting.
Essentially, Lynds asked for support from those in attendance, even with the variances, and explained that under new zoning, the lot could be subdivided, and four separate triple deckers could be built at the site with roof decks and without parking as-of-right.
“Our client obviously wants to respond to what the neighbors said about the design of the building. So going with the eight units is something that he feels is an appropriate compromise here even though it may not specifically comply with PLAN: East Boston,” said Lynds.
Initially, one attendee spoke about the parking troubles on Swan Avenue and did not think the eight parking spots proposed were sufficient.
In response, Lynds again pointed to the as-of-right project he referenced when he asked for support, which some in attendance took as a threat to support the project and prevent the as-of-right plan from happening, though he insisted it was not.
“Just so we’re clear, the city says under its new zoning that if you build a three-family building — which we can do four of those here — you don’t have to put any parking. So we could do three units four times, separate triple deckers, no parking,” said Lynds.
“I love when people say threat. I’m telling you what the zoning allows. If you consider that to be a threat, then so be it,” he added.
As demonstrated by an attendee, the issue with this is that many residents were led to believe that the new zoning would help prevent developers from requesting and being granted variances for projects, and now the proposal before them is requesting variances under the new zoning.
“We went through a lot of pain for PLAN: East Boston — everybody was here for it, right — why did we fight for this and try to get some kind of stuff? We were told there would be no variances that was going to be it — no variances at all — and guess what there’s variances,” said an attendee.
The same attendee also believed that supporting the project would set a precedent for more projects in the neighborhood to receive variances under the new zoning.
Another attendee said, “We’ve gone through hell over the last five years to create a new zoning plan that we don’t like, but we’ve had to accept, but you still want three variances from the new plan. What good is the new plan if developers are still going to want variances after all we’ve gone through.”
However, Lynds had previously made the point that, ironically, the proposal before the OHNC that would require variances under new zoning would actually be better for the neighborhood instead of the as-of-right project he spoke about.
“If you want to fight this and say no variance, then we’re going to be left with no option but an as-of-right scenario, which is not what anybody in this room wants,” said Lynds.
“If the neighborhood says no, we don’t want any variances; they’re cutting their nose off to spite their face in this instance, and this is going to happen a lot in this neighborhood as new zoning takes hold.”
To be clear, Lynds prefaced the vote, indicating that even if the council voted no, they would still go to the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) to pursue support for the proposed project. However, he emphasized that if the ZBA says no, they will be left with “no option.”
In the end, the OHNC seemed to stand on principle and opposed the project by a vote of 21-10, with two voters abstaining.