At its regular meeting on Monday, the Orient Heights Neighborhood Council (OHNC) voted to oppose a project at 944 Saratoga Street that would bring several units to a parcel next to Noyes Playground. This project, presented to the OHNC at its meeting last month and a public meeting hosted by the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA), entails the construction of a five-story building with 24 residential units.
Of the 24 total units, the building is slated to contain three studios, 13 one-bedrooms, and eight two-bedrooms.
It should also be noted that Attorney Richard Lynds, who presented the project along with Ermelin Moliere, a Senior Designer with Embarc, the project architect, explained that there are plans to go as high as 20 percent of the total units for the inclusionary development policy (IDP) commitment.
Moreover, the project plans to include 11 parking spaces, three of which will be tandem spots.
As the presentation progressed, Lynds reviewed the site context and showed images of the current site before speaking about the project’s zoning compliance.
The project site is situated in the Mixed-Use (MU)-4 subdistrict under zoning proposed through PLAN: East Boston, which the Boston Zoning Commission adopted in April. “Essentially, in large part, this is intended to comply with the PLAN: East Boston recommendations as well as the new zoning amendment that officially was adopted on April 24th,” said Lynds. Overall, Lynds noted that the project complies with every parameter except for the rear yard setback. Under the new zoning, the minimum rear yard setback in the subdistrict is 10 feet. The project is proposed to have a rear setback ranging from three to four feet. However, Lynds argued that the proposed setback lines up with the intent of the 10-foot setback under the new zoning, which he said is to maintain a minimum distance of 20 feet between buildings.
Specifically, he contended that the project site is unique in that the rear abuts Noyes Playground, which he indicated would never be developed for housing, and described the 10-foot requirement as “somewhat of an arbitrary figure.”
In speaking about the project’s zoning compliance in totality, Lynds said, “In this case, the only variance we may require, and I say may because there is an interpretation that we can request from the Zoning Board of Appeal that involves that rear yard condition that we feel is relatively small impact for anything else with respect to this project.” “So, the height of this building, the use for 24 units, the parking, all of those items actually comply with Plan: East Boston recommendations.” Later, Lynds briefly discussed the parking associated with the project. He explained that under new zoning, parking for projects of this size is determined by applying mobility scores crafted by the city. The proposed number of parking spaces aligns with East Boston’s mobility score, which corresponds to a maximum parking ratio of 0-0.75 for rental projects and 0-1.0 for condominium projects. After Lynds provided an overview of the project, Moliere walked through other aspects of the proposal, such as landscaping and the building design, which includes features such as a modal setback to align with other buildings on the street, and showed off some renderings.
Following Moliere’s presentation, the floor was opened to questions and comments from the audience. One topic of discussion was the building’s height.
As mentioned, Lynds presented the project as a five-story building, but it is being classified as a four-story building for zoning purposes. Even though the maximum height allowed in the MU-4 subdistrict is four stories and 50 feet, the site is located in the Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District (CFROD).
In helping explain this to those in attendance, Lynds agreed with an attendee, who said that it meant, “If the first floor of the building is expendable in a flooding event, you don’t need to count it toward the overall height of the building.”
Moreover, during the public meeting about this project, which was hosted by the BPDA last month, which was covered in the June 12th edition of the East Boston Times — https://eastietimes.com/2024/06/12/bpda-hosts-meeting-about-944-saratoga-development-2/ — Lynds went into greater depth explaining the height situation indicating that CFROD, also known as Article 25A in the zoning code has different regulations for determining where a first story begins and height measurements. Another resident asked whether the project would contain rental units or condominiums.
Lynds indicated that the “presumptive use” is rentals, but they may become condominiums if conditions change. There was also a discussion about preserving a tree adjacent to the project site, which is the property of the Parks Commission. Lynds indicated that the team had already hired an arborist, the tree had been pruned, and a site evaluation was conducted to ensure the tree’s survival. “We wanted to ensure that we not only preserved it but protected it.”
As the discussion wound down, Lynds indicated that the project would also include community benefits such as contributions to the parks, landscaping along the buffer edge between the property and the park, and more after requesting the community support the project. Ultimately, the proposal did not get the support that was sought. The vote ended 10-5 in opposition, with two voters abstaining.
To keep up to date with the project, you can visit its webpage on the BPDA’s website at https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/944-saratoga-street. The OHNC is slated to take August off and will reconvene in September. In the meantime, the group is looking for board nominations for a future vote. For more information, email [email protected].