By Michael Coughlin Jr.
At its monthly meeting on Monday, the Gove Street Citizens Association (GSCA) discussed the potential development of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church after a meeting was held regarding the subject last week.
Last week, a preliminary meeting was held regarding the potential development of Mount Carmel Church. Essentially, a new local proponent is in talks to buy part of a project from RISE Together that was previously approved by the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA).
However, the prospective proponent has a new preliminary plan instead of purchasing part of the project and building what was previously approved at the church site —14 condos—four affordable—and 13 parking spaces.
The preliminary plan discussed at last week’s meeting would preserve parts of the church’s facade and incorporate it into a new five-story building with 40 units and 30 parking spaces.
The East Boston Times covered this meeting in last week’s edition of the paper. To learn more about the meeting, visit https://eastietimes.com/2024/04/24/community-discusses-potential-mount-carmel-development-plan/.
Now, a week later, the GSCA used a portion of its meeting to discuss the preliminary plans and allow residents to make their voices heard.
After Neel Batra, a GSCA Board Member, recapped the meeting, Paul Passacantilli of Hanover Battery Strategies, who helped host last week’s meeting along with the proponent — Nick Dilibero — was given the opportunity to speak.
Passacantilli, who indicated that the property was under agreement, thanked folks for coming to the meeting and stressed that it was truly preliminary.
“Myself and Nick Dilibero feel like there’s an opportunity to take a building that’s been sitting in disrepair whether it’s been approved by the BPDA or not and create a project that will actually get built,” said Passacantilli.
“We feel that there’s a path forward. However, we’re still waiting on guidance from the BPDA and the city on what that path looks like,” he added.
Following Passacantilli’s comments, the floor was open for attendees to provide feedback.
Marisa DiPietro spoke about a concern raised during last week’s meeting regarding going through another approval process after development at the property has been in the works for years.
However, she said, “It sounds like the people who own the building — the land now — I don’t think that they’re going to do anything with it. So I think if we don’t allow Nick and Paul to go forward with their plan, it’s just going to sit there for more years to come.”
DiPietro continued and thought that it would be prudent to allow Passacantilli and Dilibero to develop the church and complimented the plan of preserving some of the church’s facade.
A GSCA Board Member, Jane O’Reilly, seemed to voice opposition to the plan, indicating that the building should not be built up to five stories. She also said, “We don’t need 40 more condos there.”
Passacantilli responded to O’Reilly’s comments and talked about some of the pushback from neighbors about having five stories in an area that will only allow a maximum of four stories under new zoning.
While Passacantilli understood the stance of residents who did not want to see the building at five stories, he said, “When we’re trying to preserve a church that’s been there 100 years, and obviously it’s understood that the community knows it’s going to be expensive I think we have to look at this through a very different lens.”
“The reason why the church isn’t being built currently is feasibility, this idea of what it’s going to cost and the idea of how could we truly get this project built,” he added before acknowledging the fifth floor would allow enough units to save the church.
Passacantilli continued by talking about the six-figure cost of asbestos removal and public safety issues at the property revealed by Boston Police at the meeting.
“We’re just trying to come in, and we’re trying to figure out a way to add some life back into this building,” he said.
O’Reilly then asked for more specifics regarding what part of the church would be preserved. Passacantilli responded, indicating that the preliminary plan includes keeping the facade along the Frankfort Street elevation from ground level to the roofline and about 20 or 30 yards down Gove Street.
Another GSCA Board Member, Lorraine Curry, believed the preliminary proposal should be taken seriously.
“If we have an opportunity to do something with the church and the rectory, I think we should look at that very seriously because we have no clue what’s going to happen with the convent and the parking lot,” she said.
The question of whether RISE Together could sell part of the approved project and whether the buyer could propose something new was also pondered, and Passacantilli seemed to think there was no issue.
As the discussion continued, there was debate about whether there was consensus supporting the preliminary proposal.
While DiPietro said she got the sense from people she spoke with that the community was behind the proposal, Batra disagreed.
“I did not walk away from that meeting feeling that there was an overwhelming sense that the community is definitely behind this new idea,” said Batra.
Paola Villatoro, a GSCA Board Member, also indicated there were differing opinions but thought that some people who were opposed to the idea went into the meeting with the mindset that it was the old proposal or nothing.
Before the end of the discussion, there was a heated moment in which Passacantilli took exception to a question asked by an attendee in the chat.
The attendee had asked if DiPietro was a project proponent or just a citizen providing feedback, which Batra then relayed, as is customary in GSCA meetings.
While DiPietro indicated that she only has ties to the project emotionally, not financially, Passacantilli said that asking the question was aggressive and that the question itself was unfair.
Regarding the next steps, Passacantilli said, “We have a call into the BPDA, and so we’re just waiting for the BPDA to respond. Once they respond, we’ll have a follow-up meeting, and then we’ll take it from there.”
Ultimately, several other comments about the preliminary proposal were made before the GSCA meeting ended, including one attendee who thought that the old plan needed to be let go of and another attendee raising concerns about motor vehicle density with the hotel, and other projects nearby impacting school children walking in the area every day.
In the end, Passacantilli emphasized this is an ongoing discussion. “We’re all about neighborhood engagement. As we make advancements, you guys will be in the know,” he said.
After a productive discussion on Monday, it is important to note that the GSCA’s next meeting will be on a different date than usual because of Memorial Day. The next GSCA meeting is scheduled for May 20.