Joined by district City Councilor Matt O'Malley, residents in the area of Weld and Centre streets once again told developers their proposed replacement for the collapsing old Weld-American gas station is just too big.
The latest proposal from the developers calls for 16 residential units and a commercial unit that would be limited through a deed restriction to professional use, for example, by a lawyer or accountant. An earlier design featured 17 residential units and no commercial space.
Although the four-story building meets zoning requirements for the West Roxbury Centre Street corridor, residents on Hazelmere Road behind the property said it would tower over their land, which sits in the Roslindale single-family-home zone, especially because the land slopes down from Centre towards their property.
Residents said a proposed roof deck would mean loud, disruptive parties that would reduce their property values. And they said the 26 parking spaces were just not enough. Especially when combined with the elimination of the illegal spaces in front of the gas station now, the result would mean a flood of cars parked on nearby residential streets, they said.
One resident expressed the fear that the rooftop HVAC units for the condos would vent a mist of deadly Legionnaire's Disease into the neighborhood below.
O'Malley and residents said they could probably support a three-story building, and said they were appreciative of the efforts to do something about the eyesore the gas station has been for more than 20 years - although one resident said the station has become even more of an eyesore in the year since John Sullivan and Gary Martell bought the property.
Martell said he's sitting on a $5.5-million bank loan and that he's not sure how much smaller he can go. He and his architect said city ordinances require they provide some sort of open space for the building's residents.
Martell said he could provide this through balconies on each of the units, but said that might be more intrusive for residents than a single roof deck. When residents said the difference is a roof deck could be used for rambunctious parties - one predicted police resources would be drained by the constant need to respond there - while balconies are too small for that, Martell questioned how the condo dwellers' parties would be any different than the ones residents of single-family homes could throw.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
What's it called?
By erik g
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 11:35am
[img]http://sublime99.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ma...
Express busses would do SO
By anon
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 3:12pm
Express busses would do SO MUCH for that corridor, and require so little additional investment on the MBTA's part, it blows my mind how they refuse to do it.
Instead, we're spending $3
By Chris77
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 12:35pm
Instead, we're spending $3 billion(probably more in the end) to expand our slowest form of local transportation to an area already replete with transit.
Wha?
By Sally
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 2:26pm
What-where? I'm mostly curious to know what area is "replete with transit."
Somerville has two transit
By anon
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 3:15pm
Somerville has two transit lines with multiple stations for both (Sullivan may technically be in Charlestown but in terms of accessibility, it's Somerville all the way). North-South access may suck, yeah, but it's more than Rozzie's every-other-hourly commuter rail (that doesn't even run on Sunday!)
Not exactly
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 10/10/2015 - 12:08am
The Orange and Red lines have only one stop each in/near Somerville, and only serve small areas of Somerville.
Somerville also has difficulty routing bus lines due to the hills.
The GLX goes right down the middle of a big empty space in transit service.
Try
By MostlyHarmless
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 3:24pm
Checking the library where the thesaurus was recently loaned out.
There are these things called maps
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 10/10/2015 - 12:12am
I suggest you look at one before making such geographically ignorant statements.
Great point
By Stevil
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 3:51pm
And hopefully one our new mayor addresses in his planning process. There are areas all over Mass that have become chokepoints - not just in Boston (has anyone tried coming north on route 3 or route 24 recently during rush hour?). We slapped all that development up in Southie with little/no regard to transit. Ditto Fenway which at least has the green line in the vicinity - but at times that's full up as well. Sometimes cities (Detroit?) collapse under their own weight and implode. Boston may end up harming itself simply by popping at the seams. Not sure either problem is easy to fix and neither is cheap.
How to fix the choke point
By HenryAlan
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 10:21am
That was figured out long ago. Extending the Orange Line a mile south to Rozzie Square is one of the easiest, highest bang for the buck 'T expansions available. The trick is in convincing those holding the levers of power to get behind the idea.
Why isn't this something RVMS
By anon
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 11:09am
Why isn't this something RVMS is taking a leadership role on? Of everything that could possibly shoot an injection of more interest and cash into the businesses of the square, getting us on rapid transit would do the most. Realistically, even with strong community advocacy these projects take 20 years, but it seems like none of the neighborhood organizations are interested in even starting.
Paging ckollett!
By HenryAlan
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 12:49pm
Yeah, good question, and for some reason it never even occurred to me that RVMS should be involved in advocating for an OLX. Maybe it hasn't occurred to them, either. Perhaps Universal Hub's resident RVMS board member can chime in.
Why expand the Orange Line?
By Stevil
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 1:55pm
The commuter rail parallels the orange line to Forest Hills and the next stop is Rozzie Village. Why not just adjust pricing - and perhaps transfer rights - and you don't need to build an orange line extension - it already exists. why the need to lay all that track (and where do you put it?)
Frequency and future NEC requirements
By HenryAlan
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 3:01pm
There are two problems with the Needham Line as transit for Rozzie. The first you've identified, which is the ridiculous and punitive price increase for the extra mile. The second regards capacity. The Needham Line is already fairly crowded by the time it reaches the Square, so reducing the price won't actually make more seats available during the rush hour crush loads. This could be fixed by adjusting schedule frequency, but that requires taking more available slots from NEC capacity north of Forest Hills. Right now some slots are available, but taking them for a short local commuter line doesn't sit well with Amtrak's expansion plans.
While I like your for project cost reasons, I don't think it can actually happen in a way that solves the bottle neck. It's just not possible to get many more passengers on to Needham trains in Roslindale. Further down the road, I think the entire Needham Line needs to go, replaced by a Green Line branch for Needham splitting off the D after Eliot (ROW is already there) and an Orange Line extension for Roslindale and West Roxbury. But medium term, we could do the Rozzie extension at low cost without having to take on the more significant project.
Where do you put the tracks?
By Stevil
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 3:49pm
Do you connect the orange line to the commuter rail and just kill the commuter rail and effectively make the orange line a single track light rail from Forest Hills to Needham (actually that might make sense in a lot of ways)? Do they parallel each other? Does it run down Washington as a subway? Double track/single track/gantlet track (now that would be unusual around here)?
The existing ROW has room for more track
By HenryAlan
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 4:46pm
It was originally two track, and even then it had extra room. The Busey St. bridge would need to be replaced, as it is only wide enough for two tracks, and we would need three, but aside from that, there is room along the entire route to Roslindale without any land takings. That's why an OLX could be done without eliminating the Needham Line. It's only when you go further South that the proposition becomes one or the other but not both.
Short term: Extend Orange Line to Rozzie Square
Long term 1):Extend Orange Line from Rozzie Square to Home Depot/West Roxbury Educational Complex
Long term 2): Branch from D-line after Eliot
As mentioned above, I think the Needham Line is eventually going to lose its access to the NEC when Amtrak expands. This will necessitate the longer term extensions. But before that becomes necessary, we can solve a major transit problem on the cheap by doing a phase one extension to Roslindale.
Millennium Station
By Sock_Puppet
Sat, 10/10/2015 - 1:43am
Would help the kids get to school safely
Not so easy
By Waquiot
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 6:07pm
And since you will be capturing mostly existing transit riders, not much bang for the buck.
I ranted about this before. Busses would have to remain, so there would be little aid to traffic, and your $100 million estimate (low balling IMHO) ain't spare change considering the Feds most likely wouldn't kick in for a 1 mile extension.
To be honest, in theory I am totally with extending the Orange Line to VFW Parkway, but there are several other T projects, beginning with maintenance, I would want the T to get to first. Just putting the Orange Line to the Square would be way too disruptive and expensive to be worth it.
THEY CANT EVEN KEEP THE ONE
By ROSSI RAT
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 10:15pm
THEY CANT EVEN KEEP THE ONE THEY HAVE NOW RUNNING
For what it's worth
By Gary C
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 9:31am
O'Malley lives nearly within sight of this development, thus his interest in the plan.
He used to
By adamg
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 9:38am
He grew up across the street, but he now lives in a condo in JP. Maybe his family still lives there?
As of right?
By Patricia Roberts
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 4:57pm
The developers are going to be building this project as of right, and yet they are expected to change their plans if elected officials and neighbors tell them to? What, then, does as of right mean? If our elected officials and others don't like the parameters developers must follow in as of right projects, then they should try to change the laws, but as long as as of right means what it does today, then they have no business telling the developers to change their project. Matt O'Malley should be embarrassed. Maybe the neighbors don't understand the concept, but I would have hoped Matt, at least, does. Pathetic.
Meets zoning requirements?
By erik g
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 7:36am
I'm confused. If the proposal meets zoning requirements, that means they don't have to get the ZBA's approval, which (I thought) means they can pull permits tomorrow and start demolition. I respect the developer trying to meet the neighbors halfway, but at the point where they start complaining about contrails and Legionnaire's Disease and god-knows-what-else, I don't think it would be out of line for the developer to tell them to go pound sand.
More than just the ZBA at play
By adamg
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 8:17am
This is Boston, after all. They need BRA approval (they were originally on the BRA-board agenda a couple weeks ago, were taken off because of the neighborhood concerns). Because it's across the street from the Arboretum (not the part most people know, but still), they need Parks Department sign-off as well. And they've yet to do a lot of the soil and engineering work they'd need for ISD and BWSC approval.
Thanks, Adam
By erik g
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 8:41am
Should have known better than to think there was only one regulatory agency to clear. I've mostly been dealing with the 3200 Washington development, which made it sound like JPNDC approval was required for BRA approval, which was required for ZBA approval. Didn't realize they were all separate entities who could each torpedo the project... it's a wonder anything ever gets built here.
I think you mean JPNC
By TGR
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 10:11am
That is, the JP Neighborhood Council, not the JP Neighborhood Development Corporation. In any case, JPNC recommendations are strictly advisory and are generally addressed to the ZBA, not the BRA. And as we saw at 3200, the ZBA can wisely choose to ignore them.
I am not well versed in
By Matt Frank
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 1:47pm
I am not well versed in Boston zoning (then again who is, it seems more complicate than anything I have ever encountered) but I have experience with zoning in a few other cities. Where I live we have zoning by right (you can build X and if you meet the requirements there is nothing anybody can do to stop you) and zoning by special permit. Each zone has both by right requirements and by special permit requirements for maximum occupancy, height, sideyard set back, parking etc. If a project is within the by right requirements there is very little my city can do to stop them but if its by special permit it must be voted on by the boards.
I heard people saying shame on the residents for buying property next to property that they did not know what was going to happen with it. That is not a fully fair thing to say because that could happen to any of us, who's to say that the houses next to you will not catch fire and then be turned into a larger building after that? I would suggest that the developer is taking a risk buying and developing property in an area that does not gurantee him/her the parameters they want. One of the risks is that the neighbors may not like it and that risk is compounded by the fact that they might just be against it enough to fight the proposal.
Frustrating
By Fitz
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 8:42am
There are people who live near to this project that are all for knocking down that horrible eye sore abandoned gas station and welcome a reasonably-sized condo building there. Those people don't really show up to night meetings though unfortunately and don't want to be seen as fighting with their neighbors. That's kind of how it always is. I do think Adam is right in saying this site is a little unique in its slope affecting the homes directly behind it, which might mean that a slightly smaller building at this site is appropriate even if the zoning is for 35 feet. It'd be terrible to miss this opportunity, though, I'm hoping cooler heads prevail at City Hall one way or the other.
I hope the developer walks
By anon
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 10:35am
I hope the developer walks away and lets the gas station rot even further. The neighborhood would deserve it.
Deserve it...
By anon
Fri, 11/06/2015 - 9:05pm
Yeah we would deserve it and perhaps we'll find the right developer to build the right project. We do deserve the right project. Perhaps in the mean time they can rent the space out to the businesses as a parking lot to reduce the parking issue in the area.
I hope you never have to deal with this issue I wouldn't wish something like that on you. At least we have a heart to wish you something better.
I am the homeowner who lives
By anon
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 10:57am
I am the homeowner who lives directly behind the gas station. I purchased my home knowing that a condo unit was proposed for the site. In fact, we got a pretty good deal on the house because nobody else wanted it-- most likely for that reason (or maybe it was the pink bathroom). We are NOT opposed to any development on this site, and my neighbors have been vocal about that. We are opposed to this 4 story building design and 16-17 2-3bd units on a small complicated piece of land in a neighborhood that is already struggling to accommodate overflow parking from Centre St and sewage drainage and scant public transit.
The developer has promised to keep the large trees currently on his property, and with my trees on the adjacent sloping land it will provide a little privacy in the Spring/Summer. However, in order to prevent land slides etc onto our property they need to build a retaining wall right next to those trees on our properties-- not sure how these privacy trees will survive that construction. Future studies will delineate this feat. Also, a 4 story structure really does tower over the neighborhood below this slope. Based on drawings we saw last night, a smaller 3 story structure is definitely more reasonable from our viewpoint-- but that's not what they proposed.
To the critics: It's easy to sit at your computer, have an opinion and call me and my neighbors jerk-offs. It would have been more constructive to have attended the meeting and listen to our valid concerns and voice your support for the condo complex. I didn't hear any support for the current development design at the meeting last night. In fact, my husband and I were the only residents to approach the developer and architect to give them our contact info so we could work on a good solution. Sure, my neighbors and I would much rather see a community garden in that spot (though would never actually eat the vegetables growing in that soil), but we know that's not the right the solution in the favor of progress. We aren't fighting a housing development. We are opposing this particular design plan in hopes of maintaining the character and safety of our neighborhood.
What is it you don't understand?
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 11:23am
The words "as of right" and "zoning" have meaning. If you got a good deal, then good for you. But don't whine because someone else is using their property as they have a right to do (and as you had every opportunity to know that they have a right to do).
Character and safety? Oh please. How, exactly does this development negatively impact safety? Safety comes from activity - lights, and people. You don't have that now. Character? So are you saying a derelict gas station is "character"? If your neighbors told you that you couldn't have a lawn ornament or a political sign or a back deck because of "character and safety", you would be the first to tell them to go away and MYOB.
Face it: you are on a power trip - and you are demanding improvements to your property as a bribe, too! It sounds like the developer did listen to your concerns, but then dismissed many of them as invalid. You are just like those yahoos in North Cambridge who opposed redevelopment of a lumber yard by raising these same red herrings. They also demanded only three houses on 1.5 acres "to be in character of the neighborhood" (we are talking next to Alewife here - 3,000 square foot lots at best), wanted "reduced density" on a project proposed at the same density as their current neighborhood, deeded parking in the development, and complete resolution of existing flooding issues.
Drainage and runoff
By cw in boston
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 1:46pm
are probably the biggest issues on the site besides the height. I don't know where you saw the homeowners demanding improvements to their property. I'm sure the retaining wall is something the city agencies are looking for. I would be worried about the trees as well.
I think the homeowner presented a good explanation of the opinions of the neighbors.
I'm sure many neighbors were hoping for a townhouse style development or something similar in design, like the one that was built right across Centre Street from this site.
I read safety to be talking about the cars and traffic in the area. Right now it is difficult to find parking there with the eating places, bar, and cleaners, even with the angle parking, which is difficult to back out of when you have a giant SUV next to you blocking visibility. I see lots of close calls there. And congestion is with a basically one-story commercial area.
Just curious, from the drawings posted above, I couldn't figure out where the parking lot is for the condos.
Drainage & Runoff
By ElizaLeila
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 2:43pm
drainage and runoff are not allowed to go onto adjacent properties. The designers know this and are supposed to provide systems that take care of it onsite.
Two Questions; One Suggestion
By anon
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 2:18pm
Questions:
1) Did you go to the meeting?
2) Have you ever visited this area or Roslindale/Site?
Suggestion:
Stop acting like a condescending __________!
Safety is an issue
By Kerry
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 4:33pm
Traffic really is a problem here and this development will cause more difficulties in this regard. Our tenants and our neighbors have both had their cars side-swiped while parked on the street just from the cars pasing through. The cars zoom down Knoll Street as a cut-through very fast. The intersection of Centre Street and Weld Street is really terrible too--crossing the street driving through, etc. having cars trying to pull out onto Centre or Weld will really add an additional bad element. We have kids on our street but they cars are so dangerous we have to be very careful.
This kind of thing is difficult but something instead of Weld America, which is now covered in graffiti too would be great. It would be nice for something that comes close to working for everyone would be good. Btw I think a roof deck is better than balconies.
Really
By anon
Fri, 11/06/2015 - 9:21pm
The words "as of right" and "zoning" have meaning
If this is true, why do they need the approval of the BRA? Why were they told by the BRA and go back and address the concerns. They need the BRA's approval. As a right and the zoning may be different to you but they were required by the BRA and their rules to come to the neighborhood and present the project.
The as a right was brought up and we all understood that they can pull the permits but the BRA representative quickly reminded them that though that might be case they still need the BRA approval, they still need the various agencies to sign off on the different aspects of the project.
If this was an as a right project they would be constructing the project and never have come to the neighbors. You might have known this if you were at the meetings.
Maybe you can swirl around and learn what it means. The developers kept saying as a right and BRA you still need approval, so some where in the middle is the true meaning.
Oh.
By JohnAKeith
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 11:33am
... awkwaaard.
I would much rather see a
By anon
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 1:21pm
lol
$5.5 million community garden
By El Danimal
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 1:54pm
...can't eat the produce, though.
Why not?
By ElizaLeila
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 4:05pm
If the area is cleaned up and the soils are replaced, per DEP requirements it shouldn't be a problem.
Not everyone is out to get you or screw you over you know.
Sorry, I couldn't make the meeting
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 8:12pm
I have a night job. But here I am to pick apart your reply.
"In fact, we got a pretty good deal on the house because nobody else wanted it."
Well, what did you pay? I have a hard time believing that "nobody else" wanted it. People would step over their own mother to live in Boston in 2015.
"However, in order to prevent land slides etc onto our property they need to build a retaining wall right next to those trees on our properties"
I have a hard time believing that said hill didn't exist when you moved in.
"Also, a 4 story structure really does tower over the neighborhood below this slope."
So? Is there a majestic mountain range in Dedham that you wouldn't be able to see if this were built?
" I didn't hear any support for the current development design at the meeting last night. "
I'm not surprised. Meetings like this are often attended by a self-selecting group of people opposed to the proposal. There's no real point in showing up to say "aye aye." It's not a binding referendum.
"We aren't fighting a housing development. We are opposing this particular design plan in hopes of maintaining the character and safety of our neighborhood."
A shortage of housing was a problem in Boston yesterday. I don't see a plan for housing all the Long Island folks. I don't see a plan for housing all the college kids, who are free market customers of legal businesses. I don't see a plan for fixing rents, which are too damn high.
You know how I say "adopt the kid or shut the (expletive) up" to abortion opponents? I'm going to start saying "adopt the homeless or shut the (expletive) up" to people who oppose the building of housing. Do you know why the plan is for four stories? Because four stories worth of humans can and will occupy it.
If the businessman looking to build this building thought that only three stories of housing would rent/sell, he would have proposed three. In a place where a 1BR is $1,800 a month, the competition should be welcomed. To be a human being who endeavors to place obstacles in front of the construction of any housing is at best disingenuous and at worst self-centered. Even Tsarnaev deserves three squares and a roof and a cot before we carry out his sentence.
THEN TEAR DOWN YOUR HOUSE AND
By ROSSI RAT
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 10:31pm
THEN TEAR DOWN YOUR HOUSE AND BUILD THERE, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A SAY TO WHATS BEING BUILT IN THERE BACK YARD THAT IS WHY ZONING LAWS EXIST HEY IF YOU WANT TO CURE THE WORLDS HOUSING PROBLEM DO IT ON YOUR PROPERTY LET ME KNOW HOW THAT GOES
Really?
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 11:05pm
Here is the issue: this development meets the zoning!
Zoning laws exist to constrain development BUT they ALSO exist to constrain reactionary NIMBYism!
Zoning isn't just anything that any abutter gets to make up on the spot because they don't like a proposal that meets current zoning! Or something that neighbors get decree after a plan is made because they think they have some special right to control over property that isn't theirs.
If you don't want certain types of development next to you, then you have to change the zoning BEFORE there are proposals to use a parcel! BEFORE. If you can't see ahead that far, suck it up and deal with it. Other people have rights to their property, too.
Millionaire
By Roslindale967
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 11:32am
I love how so many people say "better a huge building than what is there now". The current and previous owners should not be rewarded for making this property a blight. The BRA took a gas station in the square over that. Why not the same here. Anyone know if the gas station in the square was blighted for 10+ years? With little effort the property could be cleaned up (mowed, trash removed, graffiti painted over). Making it a blight is supposed to be motivation for the neighborhood to pass anything.
Neither the current owner or previous owner live in Roslindale, they do not care what it looks like as long as they get a cool million out of it!
A seven foot parking is just playing with numbers. Park your SUV in that garage making a eight point turn. Do you think these people are gonna pull into the garage to run into the condo or double park in front?
I don't care what rules are put in place at the intersection. The BPD has chosen not to enforce existing rules, so what chance is there they will in the future.
Don't know if it was 10+ years
By adamg
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 1:24pm
But, yes, the gas station in the square was boarded up for a long time. And let's not forget the substation, so neglected it still has trees growing out of the roof.
Substation is far more attractive
By Cosby
Fri, 10/09/2015 - 10:48pm
The substation does not have a 8' chain link fence around it with grafitti.
Yes, over 10 years, you just got use to it.
A person should be able to do
By spiro
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 11:52am
A person should be able to do as they damn well please with their own land.
You forgot to add the words
By adamg
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 1:26pm
"In Dallas." This isn't Dallas.
Sing it, brother.
By erik g
Tue, 10/06/2015 - 3:17pm
Sing it, brother. That's why I'm buying the plot of land next door to your house, and putting up Massachusetts' first and only all-in-one go-kart-track, skeet shooting range, brothel, methadone clinic, and fireworks emporium. Don't worry, we'll make sure we maintain the 10-foot offset.
Pages