Hey, there! Log in / Register

For second time this year, board rejects new development at Ashland and Mill streets in Dorchester

Proposed plot plan of Ashland Street proposal

Proposed plot plan.

The Zoning Board of Appeal today rejected a developer's proposal for a two-building, seven-unit residential project at 19-23 Ashland St., several months after it rejected plans for a single building with eight units on the parcel.

In May, the board had rejected developer Raymond Boghos's one-building proposal in part because it would have required demolition of a potentially historic house on the site. The proposal the board rejected today would have preserved the house, but extended it from two to three families and added a new building with four units in the rear.

Board members said that even with the reduction of the number of units, they were still concerned about the density, in particular the three-foot distance from one building to the neighboring property on one side and the four-foot distance in the rear.

The board rejected the proposal without prejudice, which means that Boghos could come back with a new proposal in less than the year that he would have had to wait had the board rejected the proposal with prejudice.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Magoo is having an identity crisis. Apparently uhub blocked Magoo. If Magoo can’t be Magoo on the U, then whoo is Magoo? Magoo

up
Voting closed 20

The board rejects Magoo again.

up
Voting closed 11

Yeah, nothing says Dorchester like huge setbacks. https://goo.gl/maps/W5WStu1CASjY2UU56

What exactly is the city's vision here?

up
Voting closed 10

It looks like there's as much space designated for cars as there is for people in that proposal.

up
Voting closed 11

How dare you propose such a thing.

Make Boston Weston Again.

up
Voting closed 33

Many people in this city do not believe they live in the city ie the small town of Hyde Park thinking etc.....

up
Voting closed 14

I support density. If i remember this case the original building was currently single family but previously had multiple units. There is no sound barrier here, so it would be pretty loud in the rear buildings. It seems unnecessary to build new construction homes so close to the track especially since it is not near the station. There is also drainage. This yard is huge but it slopes down from the street. The tracks are elevated but only on soil and rocks. It looks like this big lawn will be paved over. Where does the water go then?

up
Voting closed 10

Good question about runoff. So many developers promise stone pavers and grass and good drainage and then just pave over everything with asphalt.

up
Voting closed 11

Seems like anyone moving into a building 4 feet from a railroad track would be well aware of that and would either require the developers to provide soundproofing or could provide it themselves.

up
Voting closed 15

It seems unnecessary to build new construction homes so close to the track especially since it is not near the station.

Lots of existing homes are close to the T. It's not exactly news to someone buying this they'd have to deal with that noise. And if no one buys it, the developer takes the loss. I don't know why any of that should be your concern or business, or the ZBA's. This is the usual NIMBYism that is rampant in our city.

up
Voting closed 14

This is one of the few instances that the buyer will know, without question, the unit is close to the red line. If it's priced to move and you can live with it, you got yourself a place to live.

up
Voting closed 14

Went to street view. Dollars to donuts I bet Mr. Palatial Estates across the street from this location has something to say about density.

But interesting that to the 'left' of this address the Mill street homes are really suburban homes with huge back yards. While on the right of this address, Elm st, pretty much already has the high density that this project wants to build.

up
Voting closed 12

Are they saying it's not historic yet, but will be historic in, say, 50 years? 100 years?
Or are they waiting for someone famous to be born there?

Either it's historic, or it's not.

up
Voting closed 14

It's apparently before the Landmarks Commission, which has to determine if it has enough merit to be considered worthy of designation.

Legally in Boston, any building at least 50 years old has to go before the commission. There's currently a gas station garage on Washington St. (at Metropolitan) in Roslindale that has somehow survived at least 50 years and so is up for consideration because the owners want to tear it down or modify it (I forget which) even though there's absolutely nothing notable about it, unlike the art-deco station on Hyde Park Avenue.

up
Voting closed 15

but why can't we figure out if there's any historic value to the existing house and if not, let's move forward? Is the developer going through the steps in the wrong order or is the system just this broken?

up
Voting closed 7