City Councillor Giovanni Recupero and three neighbors told Chelsea’s Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday night that a plan for 15 apartments on top of an Essex Street garage is too big for the lot and the street, and Recupero accused the owner of misrepresenting a conversation with him about the project.
The board did not vote. The case, 2026-22, goes to the Planning Board on October 27 and comes back to the Zoning Board on November 10, and the public hearing stays open until then.
The proposal
Philip Raccuia, who said he has owned the property at 139-141-143 Essex Street for more than 31 years, wants to build three floors of apartments on top of the one-story masonry garage that stands there now. Each floor would have five one-bedroom units. The lot is 8,170 square feet, according to the application, which describes the result as a four-story building.
Raccuia told the board that the existing building sits on a steel frame and brick piers and already has three drain lines, 480-volt electric service, gas and water, and that tearing it down to start over would be “an enormous cost and burden.” He said the building would have a large bike room, a roof garden, a white roof, dark-sky lighting and two underground basins that return rainwater to the ground, and would be built to LEED standards.
He described the site as a fit for transit-oriented housing, with a bus stop around the corner and a “four-minute walk” to the Silver Line. In his slides, the land across the street and behind the property appeared as empty lots used for parking and garage work.
Asked by a board member why he wanted so many apartments on a small lot, Raccuia pointed to construction costs. “What happens today is that with diesel, $6 and 50 cents a gallon,” he said, “to set some type of break even point, we need to have 15 units.”
Parking
William Cecio of the city’s planning department told the board that 15 units require 23 parking spaces and the plan shows 21, so the project falls about two spaces short. Some of the spaces are compact-size, which also needs relief. The aisle between the spaces is about 28 feet wide, more than the 24 feet the zoning requires, Cecio said, after board members questioned whether drivers parked side by side at the back of the lot could back out and turn around.
Raccuia said he had spoken with Recupero, who had a concern about parking, and had offered to keep residents of the building from getting resident parking stickers. Chair Janice Tatarka pointed out that the city would not allow residents of the new units to have them anyway.
“Not this size”
Recupero, who represents District 6 and said he lives nearby and is an abutter, spoke first among the opponents. “For one thing, this gentleman, I hate to call him, but he lies,” he said. “He said he spoke to me about this and he never did. And I never told him what he said.”
Recupero said the land Raccuia showed as vacant is the backyards of people who live there, and that the garages across the street belong to the residents of those homes. “If you go down to the assessor’s office, you will find that there is no empty lots on that street,” he said. He argued that the building would be four stories, not three, counting the existing floor; that full-size cars and trucks would not fit in compact spaces; and that the existing building has only three garage doors.
“I’m not against him wanting to build,” Recupero said. “I’m in favor of, but not this size.” He suggested two three-family houses instead, which he said would fit the neighborhood. He said he had given the board a letter from the abutters and that “none of them want it.”
Carlos Navarro, who lives across the street, said parking is already the problem. He works nights, he said, and often has to park as far away as Highland Park and Marginal Street. He said the owner’s photos were taken in the daytime and that at night there are no spaces. “Nobody has compact cars,” he said. “They have trucks and normal sized cars.”
Betsy Navarro, who also lives across the street, disputed the walking time to the Silver Line. “It’s not a four minute walk, it’s a 10 to 15 minute walk depending on your pace,” she said. She said she would welcome a one- to three-family home on the lot, “but 15 units is a bit absurd.”
A neighbor who spoke in Spanish through an interpreter said he has lived on the street for 31 years and built his own home there. He said the project is too big and that two or three units would be right for the area.
Raccuia also told the board that he first proposed the project in 2019, before the area became part of a transit-oriented district, and showed it at the time to Leo Robinson, now a councillor at large.
Next steps
The Planning Board takes up the project on Tuesday, October 27, and the Zoning Board on Tuesday, November 10. Tatarka said people who did not get to speak, or who want more time, will be able to address the board again then.
For more on the plans, including unit sizes and the parking layout, see our preview of the meeting. For the rest of Tuesday’s decisions, see our report on the meeting, and for the full discussion, the transcript.
Rendering of the proposed Essex Street building: Evergreen Architecture, from the application filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals.