By Michael Coughlin Jr.
During a Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) hearing last week, several projects in East Boston proposing new buildings were reviewed and subsequently voted on.
One of the projects discussed was at 89 Condor Street. The proposal, as explained by Attorney Richard Lynds, is to demolish the existing building on the site and to construct a new four-story building with four units.
“We have done an analysis of this property and to determine whether or not there’s any historical significance; we find none,” Lynds said. “This will go through a full Article 85 process regardless.”
Lynds explained that this project had previously gone before the ZBA but was denied, and that the plans have now been updated in light of the zoning changes from PLAN: East Boston.
“We’re essentially by-right for dimension,” Lynds said. “The only significant variance that’s required is parking,” he added, while noting that there were existing conditions that are non-conforming, “with respect to both side yards.”
As the presentation continued, Lynds indicated that the units are approximately 950-960 square feet and that plans include a roof deck exclusive to the fourth unit.
Eva Jones, a city community engagement specialist, noted that an abutters meeting was held in May, attended by three people.
“The feedback from this meeting was opposition to the proposal, and concerns were primarily concerning the uniformity to the neighborhood, the density of the area, retaining wall, and that was shared by direct abutters,” Jones said.
She also mentioned that the proposal went before the Eagle Hill Civic Association (EHCA), and that attendees voted against it 11-6.
Stephan Marin from City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata’s office also provided testimony on the project, saying that the councilor opposed it.
Ultimately, the ZBA approved the project by a vote of 5-2.
Another neighborhood project discussed was described as a companion case involving 390 Meridian Street and 355 Border Street.
Lynds explained that “an existing through-lot…That essentially has frontage on two main streets,” which has an original address of 390 Meridian Street, would be subdivided, and a new four-unit building would be constructed on the Border Street side of the lot, which currently houses a garage.
Lynds also noted that the aforementioned garage, which he described as “not functional,” would be demolished as part of the project, and that no work is planned for 390 Meridian Street.
In terms of unit size, Lynds said they are all two-bedrooms and are about 1,000 square feet each. There are also plans for an exclusive roof deck.
Regarding the variances requested for the project, they are for parking and the rear-yard setback. “Other than that, I believe that the remainder of the regulations under the amended Article 53 are compliant,” said Lynds.
Again, Jones provided public testimony on the project, indicating that an abutters meeting was held in March that was “heavily attended,” and that there were six letters in opposition to the project.
“The feedback from both the meeting and the letters received by my office were strong opposition centering on the loss of green space, parking, and increased density, traffic, and noise burdens, as well as cumulative overdevelopment of the Eagle Hill neighborhood, school-related congestion, and strong documented community opposition through letters,” Jones said.
“Community members also expressed opposition to the garage being removed and as well as the fact that they believe that the applicant is subdividing the property to not adhere to the new PLAN: East Boston zoning changes,” she added.
Jones also noted that the project went before the EHCA and was opposed by a vote of 15-5.
An abutter also commented on the proposal and raised concerns about the structural integrity of their structure during construction, and the integrity of a retaining wall, among other items.
Marin indicated that Coletta Zapata was also opposed to the project.
Lynds responded to the abutters’ testimony, indicating that the project team had met with the neighbor to discuss their concerns about the proposal, had addressed many of them, and would be willing to continue working with them.
The project was approved by the ZBA by a vote of 6-1, with the proviso made by ZBA Member Katie Whewell that “the front yard setbacks increase to three feet and plans are submitted to planning for design review with attention to site planning and design, including detailed views of the ground floor and entrances as well as building placement.”
Finally, a project at 81 Lexington Street was reviewed. Lynds explained that as part of the proposal, the existing building at 81 Lexington would be demolished, and three lots would be combined to house a new seven-unit building.
In terms of the relief necessary for the project, it includes the number of units allowed and the parking requirements.
Lynds noted that they arrived at seven units because they could do three separate projects on the lots comprising the same number of units, and that parking alternatives were considered, but topography made it challenging.
Other aspects of the project note include bike storage on the ground level, landscaping buffers, and more. Additionally, plans include four one-bedroom and three two-bedroom units.
An abutters meeting was held for the project in March 2024, according to Jones, and her office received two letters of opposition to the proposal, citing insufficient parking, potential traffic increases, and nonconformity with the neighborhood.
Jones also said the EHCA voted on the proposal in March 2024 and opposed it 12-0. Coletta Zapata was also in opposition, per Marin.
Jeff Hampton from the Planning Department indicated that their recommendation was denial without prejudice. “In our recommendation, we recommended that it not exceed six (units),” and he also commented that the Lexington Street facade was “way too massive for our liking.”
Lynds responded after the public testimony, noting that he thought that the EHCA vote was from a previous iteration of the project, which has since been reduced.
In the end, the proposal was denied without prejudice, by a vote of 6-1.
To view the hearing, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzkfF5Pbc0Q.