At its monthly meeting last week, the Harbor View Neighborhood Association (HVNA) heard about a project that, if approved, would lead to the construction of two triple-deckers at 82-84 Homer Street.
As part of the proposal, the existing two-family home at the site would be demolished, and the 50-foot-wide lot would be subdivided into two 25-foot-wide lots to build two new separate three-unit buildings, which would be attached.
Eric Zachrison, the project architect who presented the project to the HVNA, also noted that the units are intended for homeownership.
Additionally, Zachrison noted that all of the units are slated to have two bedrooms and bathrooms and that the first-floor units would be using part of the basement as part of the unit. The proposal also has no off-street parking but plans for a roof deck.
Moreover, the site is zoned in the East Boston Residential (EBR)-3 subdistrict, and this proposal would require several variances from the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA).
Specifically, as presented last week, the proposal would need zoning relief for maximum building depth, rear yard, open space, lot coverage, and permeable area requirements.
After highlighting renderings, floor plans, and elevations, Zachrison took questions from those in attendance.
One attendee expressed her surprise at the number of zoning variances in the proposal and wondered why the project could not comply with the new zoning that was ushered in through PLAN: East Boston.
In response, Zachrison noted that their client thought the units would be too small for the market and wanted to include a workspace area.
“That really is what pushed the building to be a little bit longer than what is allowed,” he said. “They believe that the market here wants it to be a little bit more like that than what the zoning allows.”
The same attendee followed up on their question, stressing the work that community members put in to help craft the new zoning, and suggested having two larger units per building instead of three.
Another attendee questioned why the plans did not include a second means of egress. Zachrison noted that in Massachusetts, three-story sprinkled buildings only need one means of egress.
The same attendee wondered how the buildings would be built due to the need for a side setback, even with the subdivided lot. However, Zachrison said they understood the zoning code to allow for attached buildings — which is the plan in this case.
An abutter expressed concerns about the proposed building’s proximity to a heating system that the abutter had installed on the side of their building because the proposed structure is slated to be only three feet from its own property line.
As the meeting progressed, multiple attendees raised concerns about the proposed building being attached. They thought there needed to be space between the buildings and that the proposal appeared to be a way to circumvent zoning.
“There are attached two and three-family buildings across the city. We believe that this is what’s allowed,” said Zachrison.
Before the discussion wrapped up, other attendees asked questions and commented about different aspects of the project, such as the height of the current structure on the property, the management of water at the property, and more.
It should be noted that this was the first presentation of the project to the HVNA. It is customary for the proposal to be presented to the neighborhood association again before a vote. An abutters meeting had also yet to occur at the time of the presentation. The next HVNA meeting is scheduled for October 7.