During a hearing last week, the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) approved two projects in the neighborhood, one on Bennington Street and the other on Chelsea Street.
The first project up for discussion was located at 609-611 Bennington Street and was presented by Attorney Richard Lynds.
As part of the project, the existing two-family dwelling at the site would have its legal occupancy changed to an educational use so that Brooke Charter School can use it for additional programming.
“We propose no changes to the exterior of the building as it can be seen from Bennington Street. So, for all intent and purposes, this will remain visually as a two-family dwelling; it would just be the internal programming that we’re changing for purposes of allowing for additional space for the school,” said Lynds.
As the presentation progressed, Lynds noted that access to this new building would be from the rear of the Brooke Charter School’s current building. He acknowledged that the project was cited for an off-street parking violation under zoning but emphasized that the school has accessory parking from an arrangement with the Salesian Boys & Girls Club.
Later, Lynds mentioned a slight alteration of a porch at the exterior of the building for an accessible entry point, which also requires zoning relief for the rear setback.
Following the brief presentation, members of the zoning board did not ask questions. Eva Jones, a city Community Engagement Specialist, indicated that nobody attended a July abutters meeting but said there was support from the community, according to East Boston’s Neighborhood Liaison Roberto Gomez.
Jones also mentioned that the Harbor View Neighborhood Association (HVNA) supported the project after the group unanimously voted to support it in May by a 17-0 margin.
Sebastian Parra, a representative from City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata’s office, noted that the councilor supported the project because of the community’s and the HVNA’s sentiments.
Later, an abutter who said they wished to support the project raised concerns about construction and work going on after hours. Lynds apologized and mentioned he would discuss it with the contractor and proponent.
Ultimately, a motion to approve the project was unanimously supported.
The next project up for discussion was at 55 Chelsea Street, which Lynds also presented. The current building at the site has a salon on the lower level and residential units on the upper level and the rear.
“The building currently occupies most of the site. Our proposal would perform a complete renovation and reconstruction of the building with some infill on the second and third levels,” said Lynds.
“We would be changing the occupancy from the current use of retail and residential to a use of five residential units and two ground-level retail spaces.”
After reviewing the site context and renderings, Lynds highlighted the zoning violations for which the project has been cited.
One of these citations is for use in that commercial or retail uses are forbidden on the ground level in the zoning subdistrict in which the site is — East Boston Residential (EBR)-3. However, Lynds made a point of saying that three other buildings in the vicinity have commercial use.
Moreover, regarding the use, Lynds stated that multifamily use or up to at least six units is allowed in EBR-3 because the lot is wider than 55 feet.
While the project was cited for violating setback requirements, Lynds said there are amendments to Article 53 (zoning code) that allow for vertical additions for pre-existing buildings “without regard to the setback” as long as the building complies with the height limit in the zoning subdistrict.
Lynds also mentioned other violations, such as open space and floor area ratio, which he said are no longer applicable under current zoning, and others like permeable area, which the project is exempt from because the building is a pre-existing structure. It should also be noted that the project violates the off-street parking requirement.
After Lynds finished the presentation, he took questions from the zoning board.
Board Member Hansy Better Barraza had asked about having a unit on the first floor since the site is in the Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District (CFROD).
Lynds noted that the project was filed before changes to Article 53, so CFROD does not apply in this case, and the first-floor unit is an existing condition at the site.
Following Barraza’s question, Jeff Hampton from the city’s Planning Department provided a recommendation.
He said, in part, “Understanding that a lot of these violations disappear per se with the adoption of the new zoning, we would still like to have as many projects as possible comply with the new updated dimensional requirements.”
“With that said, as you can see, our recommendation is for denial without prejudice.”
In response, Lynds emphasized that the project’s only violations under the new zoning would be for parking and retail use at the ground level, which is pre-existing.
“We have worked to ensure that this is not in violation of the new provisions of Article 53 to the best we can, and I think that the relief that we are requesting is the absolute minimum relief we would need for this project to move forward,” said Lynds.
After some other comments and questions from the Board, Jones provided information on the community process. Specifically, Jones said nobody attended the abutters meeting for the project, but the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association supported the proposal.
Parra said Coletta Zapata recognized the site’s lack of parking and existing use and went on record in support based on community sentiment.
In the end, a motion to approve with review from the Planning Department was unanimously approved.