By Michael Coughlin Jr.
For the third time, representatives for a proposed project at 112 Marginal Street presented their plans during Monday’s Jeffries Point Neighborhood Association (JPNA) meeting — plans that have frustrated abutters.
Attorney Jeff Drago, who owns the property along with Tom Falcucci, presented the proposal. It involves changing the occupancy of the existing building from a one-family to a three-family, building a rear addition, and building a roof deck.
“The building to the right of us, to the left of us, to the left beyond that are all three-unit buildings… there’s a number of four-story multi-family residential as well,” said Drago.
“We felt this was a very reasonable proposal — eventually to turn these into condominium units over time,” he added.
As Drago progressed through his presentation, he reviewed changes made to initial proposals for the building based on feedback from the JPNA and other neighbors.
These modifications included removing a proposed fourth-floor addition, reducing the unit count from four to three, and reconfiguring rear window layouts to address abutters’ concerns about privacy.
Drago then continued to outline the context of the current site by showing images and highlighting four-story buildings in the area.
Additionally, he reviewed the projected zoning relief needed for the project. While new zoning developed through PLAN: East Boston awaits approval from the Boston Zoning Commission, Drago indicated they would have to work under the current zoning parameters.
“This was filed while we still had the existing zoning code so we would be grandfathered in,” said Drago.
However, he did mention, “Although all of the BPDA (Boston Planning & Development Agency) recommendations going forward are looking toward the new planning study.”
Drago detailed other facets of the project before the floor was opened up to questions, such as the unit mix and roof deck.
Each of the three proposed units is planned to be two bedrooms and 799, 864, and 833 square feet, respectively. Also, Drago pointed out that the roof deck, which is exclusive to the top unit, has been pulled back several feet in the front, back, and right side.
Initially, when the question and comment portion of the presentation began, everything seemed to be going swimmingly.
However, the presentation quickly became passionate when it came time for abutters to ask questions or comment.
Michael Dwyer, an abutter, had concerns about a rendering shown during the presentation in which he thought a wall was being built in the backyard on an easement, which would not be allowed.
In response, Drago confirmed that there was an easement in the back and had referred to a concrete item on his property from “somebody else,” which caused Dwyer to raise his voice at Drago.
One of JPNA’s Co-Chairs, Margaret Farmer, quickly shut down the loud retort and reminded everyone to be respectful before allowing Drago to continue.
Drago claimed they are not building a wall in the back as part of the project and that it is just a “depth in the back with a bump.”
Dwyer was unsatisfied with the explanation and still believed something was being built on the easement. Later, he said, “Forgive me for not taking you at face value, but to me, it looks like you plan to build a wall around your first-floor apartment and create a little yard in front of that sliding glass window.”
However, Drago again emphasized, “We are not touching that easement,” which prompted confusion from Dwyer and more discussion before Farmer insisted that they move on to other questions.
As the presentation continued, Drago answered other questions from abutters concerning trash storage, fire suppression, and more before the JPNA moved on to a presentation from an abutter.
In addition to Drago’s presentation, Kaitlin Andryauskas, an abutter, made one of her own, detailing her and other abutters’ concerns with the project.
During her presentation, Andryauskas walked through several projects under construction, slated to be under construction, and others that have been completed, pointing to issues with noise, traffic, and parking, which residents in the immediate area have had to endure.
Additionally, she pointed to other impacts of these aforementioned projects, such as the displacement of other residents and concerns about what the proposal at 112 Marginal would mean for the safety of some of the older abutting homes.
She also outlined concerns from direct abutters, including the proposed project being built to the property line, privacy, and more, and laid out questions they are looking to get answered.
Andryauskas also presented a table disputing some of the figures related to zoning parameters and spoke at length about trying to reach an enforceable agreement with the developer to quell some of the abutters’ concerns.
“We have made efforts since November to come in good faith to work with the developer to come up with an enforceable agreement regarding these matters,” said Andryauskas.
Ultimately, the terms of an enforceable agreement could not be agreed upon, and Andryauskas claimed conversations did not continue after there seemed to be what she described as disagreement concerning what was enclosed in the proposed agreement.
It should be noted that Andryauskas also claimed that multiple abutters who opposed the project were sent letters indicating that they needed to remove alleged encroachments or they may face legal action.
The abutter presentation prompted more fiery moments both during and after the presentation. For example, Falcucci interrupted Andryauskas and claimed she was lying mid-presentation, which induced Farmer’s wrath.
After the presentation, Dwyer, referring to the letters concerning supposed encroachments from abutters, alleged Drago was abusing power, and the meeting once again turned tense, with Drago trying to defend himself and Farmer trying to bring about some order.
Finally, after more comments and questions from abutters, Drago was given the floor to respond.
He spoke at length about the changes made to the project and working with neighbors, saying, “We started this process working and listening to these neighbors, so for it to be said that we weren’t — that’s concerning to me.”
He also spoke about trying to come to an agreement with neighbors and how that fell through.
“What we got was an agreement limiting our liability from any future lawsuits… I had concerns with it — I still do,” said Drago.
“We are willing to work with our neighbors but when neighbors hire lawyers, and now it becomes legalese in all of the writings, we have to be very careful about limiting liability. So I can’t just sign a good neighbor agreement that isn’t a good neighbor agreement and is designed by an attorney to limit all liability,” he added.
Eventually, Drago and Andryauskas had a back-and-forth regarding the enforceable agreement and potential miscommunications, which seemed to move things in a more positive direction, which Farmer acknowledged.
“I’m happy to see — it seems to be that there’s a little bit of progress in terms of communication here, and that is good to see. I am hopeful to see it continue,” said Farmer.
Overall, this project is slated for a JPNA vote. Ballots will be sent to eligible voters tonight, and polls will close on Friday.
To learn more about the project, the abutters presentation, and more, visit the JPNA website at https://jeffriespoint.org/. The next JPNA meeting is scheduled for April 8.