By Michael Coughlin Jr.
During a hearing last week, the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) approved a project on Brooks Street and another on Chelsea Street.
The first proposal up for discussion was at 8 Brooks Street. Attorney Jeff Drago explained that the project would change the occupancy from a retail store to a retail store with four units. It should be noted that the site currently houses Helados Juli’s Frozen Dessert on the first floor.
“To get those units, it would be to erect a two-story vertical addition with four units on the existing one-story commercial building,” said Drago. There are also plans for two exclusive roof decks on the building.
As for how this proposal aligns with zoning, Drago indicated that the only variances required would be for the Groundwater Conservation Overlay District (GCOD), the storefront because the pre-existing retail use is non-conforming, and roof structure restriction due to the roof decks.
“Other than that, we meet all of the other criteria set by the new East Boston EBR-3 (zoning district),” said Drago.
After Drago had briefly highlighted the plans, Eva Jones, a community engagement specialist with the city, indicated that an abutters meeting was held and attended by two residents who did not provide feedback on the project.
Jones also indicated that the proposal was reviewed and supported by the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association. Ultimately, the ZBA approved the project unanimously.
The following proposal discussed was at 140 Chelsea Street. According to Attorney Richard Lynds, the proposal would change the use and occupancy of the existing three-unit building to four units. There are also plans for two parking spaces.
“Our proposal would result in a complete renovation of the lowest level of building,” said Lynds.
He then proceeded to discuss how this project lines up with zoning. Lynds mentioned that the proposal was filed before amendments to Article 53 and wanted to provide explanations regarding what violations the project had been cited for.
For example, Lynds identified violations he thought were no longer applicable under new zoning, such as the floor area ratio (FAR), insufficient lot area, and usable open space.
He also spoke about a number of stories violation, saying, “I believe the reason for that citation that Inspectional Services included was because we are changing the occupancy of the lowest level to habitable space.”
“The use of space in a building does not dictate whether or not it constitutes a story. This is a pre-existing structure; the calculation is the height of our lowest level being 65% or more above grade,” he added, indicating that the project does not propose to increase the height of the building.
Lynds also disagreed with the off-street parking violation. Article 53 notes that residential buildings with one to three units do not require parking, while anything above that requires one spot per dwelling unit. However, Lynds stated that Article 53 indicates that when units are added to a building, the project would only have to comply with parking regulations for the additional unit rather than having to comply with parking regulations fully.
He stated that they only need to provide one parking space since they only add one unit, calling the interpretation that they needed parking for all units erroneous.
Lastly, Lynds noted that the project was cited for forbidden use. Again, he mentioned that this proposal was filed before the zoning changes in the area and that they were under the impression that this portion of Chelsea Street would have been in the EBR-4 district and went forward with the idea to add the unit, but the area ended up in the EBR-3 district.
Following Lynds’ presentation, ZBA Member Jeanne Pinado had an issue with units in the basement, saying the zoning does not allow it.
However, Lynds stated that the site is located in Flood Zone X, which is not considered a flood hazard risk. “This would not be in violation of Article 25.”
“Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District (CFROD) now applies under any project filed after amendments to Article 53; again, this was filed prior to that and therefore would be protected from compliance with CFROD,” said Lynds.
Later, Jeff Hampton from the Planning Department indicated that the Planning Department was recommending denial of the proposal because of its location in the CFROD.
In response, Lynds said, “We don’t disagree with Mr. Hampton’s assessment and certainly we’re making the argument based upon that we do require the relief that was cited but if we’re going to be required to take the relief that was cited we should be exempt from those provisions that were not applicable at the time of our filing.”
As for this project’s community process, Jones noted that an abutters meeting was held for the project and was not attended by any constituents. She also said that the project was reviewed and supported by the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association.
In the end, a motion to approve the proposal due to the timeline of the filing and the flood zone map shown during the hearing passed with Pinado as the only dissenting vote.