By Michael Coughlin Jr.
A proposed project that would bring residential units to a vacant industrial building at 98-100 Condor Street, which was presented at a public meeting back in October, was shown again during a meeting hosted by the Planning Department last week.
As part of the proposal, the existing four-story industrial building will be renovated on the exterior and interior, and its occupancy will be changed to accommodate 35 rental units along with ground-level amenities such as storage and fitness areas.
Additionally, the project includes plans for seven parking spaces. The unit mix plans call for 12 studio, 12 one-bedroom, and 11 two-bedroom units.
It should also be noted that Richard Lynds, the project attorney, said, “we’re not changing anything with respect to the elevation or the height, nor are we changing anything with respect to the overall footprint of the building itself.”
As for how this project aligns with zoning in the area, Lynds indicated that the property is located in the Waterfront Mixed-Use (WMU) zoning subdistrict, which he said, “allows for a number of uses to now occur as a matter of right in this district, not in the least of which is multi-family residential housing which is what we’re proposing.”
Further, Lynds mentioned that the project complies with all of the requirements in the zoning subdistrict.
Moreover, the aforementioned October meeting addressed the fact that this property is located in a Designated Port Area (DPA). At that meeting, Lynds also pointed to plans showing a line running through the back of the property, which signified a Chapter 91 boundary.
During the project presentation, Lynds outlined renderings, floor plans, site plans, and more. He also detailed other aspects of the project, such as landscaping, street trees and bike storage in front of the building, and a new crosswalk on Condor Street.
There was also an alteration to the project in that a previously proposed roof deck is no longer in the plans, though Lynds said the idea could be revisited.
Following the presentation, those who attended the meeting were able to comment and ask questions.
One attendee, an abutter who owns the building behind the proposed project, which Sparrow Enterprises currently occupies, wanted to ensure that an area on the right side of the building would remain open for industrial use.
Lynds indicated that there was no plan for closing that area since it is a shared-access with the building behind them and 130 Condor Street to the right.
The abutter followed up on their initial question and wondered how they would ensure that people would not park in the shared-access area and block it, considering the number of units with few parking spaces, and added that other than this concern, he was happy to see something happening with the building.
In response, Lynds said, “We will ensure, as part of this redevelopment, that there is adequate signage on the side of the building indicating that it’s no parking and it’s a tow zone.”
John Walkey, who is also director of climate justice and waterfront initiatives at GreenRoots, a non-profit environmental justice group, voiced several concerns about the city’s zoning and how it relates to this project.
For example, while Walkey acknowledged the zoning changes in East Boston, he raised concerns about having residential uses near industrial areas with noise, smell, off-hour activity, and more, and suggested that this information be included in a legal disclosure to potential tenants.
He also took issue with the city’s parking stance, saying, “to think that there’s going to be this many units and there’s not going to be more than seven cars is ludicrous.”
“We’ve run out of parking in the city, and at this point, there’s no indication that the city has a plan for dealing with that, and projects like this only exacerbate it.”
Walkey also talked about affordability, and Lynds mentioned that the project has zero affordable units but is compliant with regulations.
Lynds noted at the October meeting that affordable units are not required since this project was filed before the changes to affordability regulations in the city and does not need zoning relief.
Walkey continued providing his thoughts and eventually asked if any green aspects were proposed for the building. Lynds mentioned plans for some EV (electric vehicle) charging, and they could consider adding solar panels.
During the conversation, several other topics were touched on. For example, one attendee thought it would be prudent for the city and state to touch base regarding Chapter 91 jurisdiction, as the city’s zoning seems to conflict with it.
Others brought up the parking issue, saying they were not convinced the development would bring tenants without cars and that on a macro-level, the city should look to address parking concerns. There was also confusion surrounding whether construction on the project had already started due to the demolition of a shed at the rear of the property.
However, Tyler Ross, a senior project manager at the Planning Department, indicated that they obtained a demolition permit properly, and it is technically not part of the project.
While the comment period for this project has closed, Ross indicated that people can still comment on the proposal. He also noted that it is slated to go before the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) Board for a vote this month.
For more information about the project, visit https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/98-100-condor-street and email [email protected] to comment.
According to the Planning Department’s website, the BPDA Board meeting at which this project is tentatively scheduled to be voted on is April 10.