Hey, there! Log in / Register
Owners of Savin Hill home win approval to expand house into three condos; some neighbors object
By adamg on Wed, 01/10/2024 - 9:55am
Rendering by Nicholas Landry, DRT.
The Zoning Board of Appeal yesterday approved plans by Pauline and Tony King of 164 Savin Hill Ave. in Dorchester to enlarge their single-family home into a three-condo building.
Pauline King and her son's plans call for adding a three-story addition to the current 2 1/2-story house, with four below-ground parking spaces.
The proposal needed variances because, among other reasons, it would have three units in a three-story building on a lot zoned for two-family homes no more than 2 1/2 stories tall, because the new building would be denser on the property than allowed.
The Kings' architect, Nicholas Landry, said the project - originally proposed as four units - would keep much of the existing house so that the project "meets the esthetic and feel of the neighborhood as much as possible."
But nearby Savin Hill Avenue residents said they were "vehemently" and "extremely" opposed, saying variances require proof of hardships and special conditions, that the proposal does not show that and that the Kings could obtain the legal "reasonable use" of their 4,400-square-foot lot by expanding their house into a two-family structure.
Matthew Patton said the $1.2 million the family would make per unit is not a hardship, but that construction would prove a hardship "on my family's ability use our property," due to increased traffic and increased issues for pedestrians.
"It's much too large, much too dense and it breaks all the rules," Savin Hill Avenue resident Paul Ginandes said.
The Columbia-Savin Hill Civic Association voted to oppose the proposal. Board member Kristine Hoag, who lives on Savin Hill Avenue, said the group supports greater housing in the area and that it realizes the area could see up to 10,000 new housing units, but that this specific proposal is simply too far out of character on its stretch of Savin Hill Avenue. Hoag said she was reluctantly speaking in opposition because "Tony and his mom are valued members of the community."
The board approved the project unanimously.
Watch the hearing:
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Moooooooooooore!
More! More! More!
It's a shame they shrank it from four to three
And if that breaks the rules, then the rules need to change.
Patton
Thank God Patton didn't win the council seat with that NIMBY attitude. This seems like such a reasonable proposal and fits nicely in the neighborhood.
Matthew Patton said the $1.2
Patton ran for City Council last year on a pro-housing platform! NIMBY for me but not for thee?
Praise be
How dare they!
It's hard to tell exactly how Matthew Patton is going to be affected on his property (161, diagonally across the street). They're not planning to have cars driving across his lawn. He doesn't own the street. The issues for the pedestrians are, what exactly? More cars, I guess, but that would be an issue anywhere. It's not like it's some high-traffic street; Savin Hill roads are deftly laid out to basically eliminate cut-through traffic with one-way traffic. So that a nearby portion of Savin Hill Road (there's no way to link to the specific record) has fewer than 900 vehicles per day, 99% of them cars and 98% of them going under 30 mph. So adding four cars (so maybe eight trips) is going to be a hardship? Nah. The 240,000 cars which pass on either side of the neighborhood each day may be more of an issue.
So he has a nice neighborhood where he can walk to the T (if not easily to a grocery store) and maybe the kind of place more people would like to live but not if they live across the street from his house? Okay, cool.
"It's out of character," say
"It's out of character," say the neighborhood associations, "and that character is..."
OTB
gonna OTB. They don't want more people in that neighborhood, that's a flat out lie.
OTB? I assume you're
OTB? I assume you're _probably_ not referring to off-track betting here.
Thank you
For taking the nimby literally and showing that his argument is indeed as flimsy as it seems.
Homes values and property taxes will hurt the average person
I think the issue here is it's not that people don't want to build however the board just can't go against what community is opposing. The other issue is whether we build or not property values on the same street will go up in value then so do the property taxes which the average person can no longer afford in the city. With all the building in my area my taxes now are $6200 a year. I get it we need more housing but, property taxes and increasing home values hurt long time natives in the community.
the speed limit is 25
And Savin Hill connects to Morrisey Blvd. I think you are underestimating the traffic. It shouldn't add much more traffic. The units seem rather big for the lot. It seems like it will be a huge building for only 3 units. If they approve the size but think making bigger units will bring less car driving adults to the property they are mistaken.
I generally agree with you
I generally agree with you but SHA is not a quiet street and carries a fair amount of traffic as it is a major cut through from Dot Ave to Morrissey Blvd and I93 south access at Freeport St. The speed limit is 25 mph (which is too fast for that road) and people regularly speed through there. There’s a reason why you see all the Slow Down for Dorchester/Savin Hill signs posted along that stretch.
When there is construction along this street often the trucks pull onto the sidewalks making walking difficult if you have a stroller or kids/dogs. So that is a legitimate concern but is easily mitigated with enforcement.
How many commenters
live on Savin Hill, Dorchester or Boston?
Asking for a friend.
But...nearly every house on that street is a multi-family.
And that rendering is really nicely done.
Some people, man.
Savin hill
Stay savvy
No, nothing, nevers
The CSHCA is well known for opposing most new housing, especially "over the bridge". The building to the right is a 2-family on a non-conforming lot, next to that is a same sized lot that the owner of the existing 2-family proposed to develop into a "sister" 2-family. Most of the same neighbors vehemently opposed that project, so the owner whittled it down to a single. Even then the no, nothing, nevers opposed that! The owner did prevail at the ZBA with the single.
The site is a 5 minute walk to the Savin Hill T station.
Interesting that opposer, Matt Patton, was knocked out in the preliminary election for D3, and the winner, John Fitzgerald, supported the project.
Thanks Adam for reporting on
Thanks Adam for reporting on this as well as providing the link to the start of the case -much easier than having to search it through a 5 hour long hearing.
Some interesting bits came out of watching this case on replay:
This corner of Dorchester has a lot of well-off and well connected people, but even though the civic association voted 6 in favor and 21 against the project -according to the city liaison rep- the ZBA board didn’t seem to care much. Very different from what would have been a few years ago.
Some of the opponents who spoke out at the hearing showed irrational concerns. But they also made a legit and well articulated argument that by rule, variances are only supposed to be granted when the applicant is facing hardship. According to them, the only reason why this lot would be developed is for financial gain so that the owner can sell condos for $1.2m a piece -a figure provided by the project proponent. Not exactly a charitable mission. None of the board members seemed to care to justify their vote on that either.
Exactly why we need statewide upzoning
It doesn't require more land, it makes multi-generational living possible, it would expand housing options outside as well as inside cities, and it would put an end to this NIMBY bs that has caused much of the situation we find ourselves in today.
According to them, the only
The absolute HORROR of someone making money by providing a resource in high demand. The solution is definitely to further limit said resource to make it even more pricey. Genius. /s
You raise a good point. There
You raise a good point. There’s a supply / demand imbalance and the market adjusts. People get upset because everything in Boston becomes more expensive by the year, yet there’s very little criticism of the demand side. Say for instance there wasn’t such a high concentration of six figure tech and healthcare jobs in Boston. Then you wouldn’t see so many +$1 million homes or +$3,000 / month apartments because there would be less people chasing them and driving prices to that point. Good luck getting most people to admit that their own high compensation is a big part of the problem though. Easier to demand the government intervenes and fixes things, even though governments rarely succeed at doing that.
Savin Hill OTB has dozens of
Savin Hill OTB has dozens of triplexes. The zoning rules are wrong.
Commenters give no value to sunlight.
Having a building right up to the edge of a lot affects neighbor’s sunlight, privacy. While one doesn’t have a right to a view, it is fair to expect zoning guidelines will be followed, and setbacks, etc set some expectation.
The importance of natural light affects happiness and general wellness and directly impacts how a person experiences their home.
It is amazing to me the hostility commenters express toward residents who have the audacity to try to protect their investments and quality of life by getting developers to follow zoning guidelines, or even make modest adjustments like a sloped roof to mitigate those impacts.
Commenters vilify opponents as full of entitlement, but for the most part, these areas are full of people of modest means. Squeezing in a couple high end condos at the expense of neighborhoods quality of life and throwing out zoning rules in the process is not moving the needle on affordable housing.
Build it!
A rare conversion that gives a single shit about architecture! Love that they aren't knocking this down completely to build more boxy fiberglass bullshit. It looks like a house in the neighborhood.
Changing times are speeding up
I remember the first single family house on Savin Hill that went for over a million... Think it was about 2015-16. A whole house for a million. About that same time, saw a triple decker on Pleasant go for $1.3ish mill.
Just 8yrs have gone by... And now you get a third of a house for the same price. Amazing.