By Michael Coughlin Jr.
At its monthly meeting on Monday, the Orient Heights Neighborhood Council (OHNC), once again, voted against a proposed project at 36 Leyden Street.
In September, the council overwhelmingly opposed a proposal to demolish the existing building on the site and instead erect a new building with eight units and eight parking spaces.
Fast-forward to Monday, and the Developer, David Gradus, is taking another kick at the can with a new plan for the property.
As Attorney Jeff Drago, who presented the project to the OHNC, explained, the new plan is to subdivide the current lot and build a new three-unit building with two parking spaces next to the existing two-family home on the property.
Other aspects of the project to note are that the proposed three-unit building is slated to be three stories and 32 feet tall and that the units are intended to be sold as condominiums.
Both Gradus and Drago spoke a bit about the changes made from previous iterations and how feedback from neighbors has been taken to improve the project.
“We’ve been at this project for a couple of years. You all gave me great feedback when we were trying to put up a large building on both lots. We asked for a 10, then we asked for an eight — we have completely reconsidered this project,” said Gradus.
Drago referenced previous iterations, which were larger in scale, contained roof decks, and had more units, saying, “David [Gradus] took the feedback we’ve heard from the group and made changes accordingly.”
Moreover, there were also some modifications made to this version of the proposal, which included reducing the unit count of the proposed building from four to three, reducing parking spaces from three to two, maintaining the existing building at the property, and increasing the setbacks of the front and rear yards.
Later in the presentation, Drago outlined the zoning information for the proposal. Under current zoning, the property is in a 2F-4,000 subdistrict and is grandfathered into this zoning because of the date the project was filed.
He also highlighted the zoning information under the new zoning, which was developed through PLAN: East Boston and awaits adoption from the Boston Zoning Commission.
“We’ve tried to meet as many of the criteria as possible. We would still need variances under both the PLAN: East Boston as well as the existing code,” said Drago.
Further, David Choi, the Project Architect, walked through what he did regarding the design of the proposed building and talked about how he wanted to create a structure that looks like it is supposed to be in the neighborhood.
“If my son or my daughter asked, ‘Well, what did you do here?’ I think I’m proud to tell you, to the neighbors, that I did my job,” said Choi.
After Drago and Choi talked a bit more about the project, the floor was open to attendees, who could ask questions or comment.
One attendee criticized the project’s noncompliance with PLAN: East Boston. “This is embarrassing. We literally just wasted all that time. Every single thing that has come across this organization and Harbor View [Neighborhood Association] since that’s been actually officially done has not followed PLAN: East Boston,” said the attendee.
In response, Drago, in part, said, “I think as time goes on — these projects were filed years ago — it’s a long process, so I think as time goes on, you’ll see that will likely change and probably more and more will align with the code, but we do meet a number of the criteria in the code.”
Drago and attendees then had a back-and-forth about the difficulty of producing a functional building that is 100% in compliance with the city’s zoning code and the Zoning Board of Appeal evaluation process.
Another attendee commented, thanked the developer for revising the proposal, and pointed out that this process could have been smoother if they had initially come with this version.
“Come to us with this first. Don’t waste our time with this four-story, nine-unit thing because it’s a waste of our time. It creates animosity; it doesn’t even create debate. This, at least now, is maybe a debate,” they said.
“If you had come with this years ago, you would have been building now,” they added.
Following the presentation, the project went to a vote and, as mentioned, was opposed. The final vote was 15 in opposition and seven in support.