The Chelsea Planning Board on Tuesday recommended approval of 15 one-bedroom apartments on three new floors above a garage at 139-143 Essex Street, over the objections of District Councillor Giovanni Recupero and a resident who said the neighborhood cannot absorb more cars. After going back and forth on the parking layout, the board kept all 21 of the project’s spaces and added a condition that six of the outdoor spaces be marked for visitors.
The case goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 10. That board heard it on October 13, when Recupero and three neighbors spoke against it.
The project
Philip Raccuia, the petitioner, called the building “transit oriented development.” The new floors would sit on the existing masonry garage and its steel frame, with no new foundation and the same footprint. Each of the three new floors would have five one-bedroom units, ranging from 487 to 710 square feet, with balconies, an elevator and a roof deck. Raccuia said every unit would meet accessibility rules, the building would be 40 feet tall, and construction would take about 10 months once it is permitted, starting this winter if the weather is mild or in the spring if not. Raccuia described the project as self-financed.
Raccuia showed walking routes to bus stops on Highland Avenue, the Silver Line and the new waterfront park on Marginal Street. William Cecio, the city’s planning director, said the building meets the 40-foot height limit, so it needs no height relief.
Parking: from 21 spaces down, and back to 21
At 1.5 spaces per unit, Chelsea’s zoning requires 23 spaces. The plans show 21, inside the garage and outside, and some are compact spaces of 8 by 15 feet. The city’s standard space is 9 by 18. Raccuia asked the board to consider one space per unit instead. The planning department had proposed a condition that the outdoor spaces all be full size.
For a while the board leaned the other way. Board member Sara Haidar Escobar preferred fewer, larger spaces, even at one per unit. Member Mimi Rancatore disagreed: “If you go to one to one,” Rancatore said, “it’s very challenging if anybody has a roommate or visitors over the weekend.”
Public comment settled it. After residents raised parking, members Eric Czernizer, Haidar Escobar and Geneliz Herrera all said they would keep every space and mark some for guests. Haidar Escobar said that if each of the 15 units had one car, about six spaces would be left for visitors. Cecio dropped the full-size-space condition and suggested a visitor condition in its place. A board member also asked for bollards to protect the garage’s support piers, and Raccuia agreed.
The same member proposed that the new residents also be barred from guest parking passes. Cecio said that could not be imposed as a condition, because the guest pass belongs to the city’s on-street parking program.
Affordable units
Under the city’s updated inclusionary rules, two of the 15 units must be affordable, one at 50 percent and one at 80 percent of area median income, Cecio said. Raccuia said other projects with that number had been allowed to go to one unit at 80 percent and said, “we’d be happy with that as well.” Czernizer said the board should keep two, and Raccuia said, “As the owner, I have no problem with that.”
What residents said
Recupero, who told the board of living on the street for 47 years, said the building “doesn’t meet any requirements” and that neighbors would accept a six-family house but not 15 units. According to Recupero, the lot is about 8,000 square feet, that visitors’ cars would fill the street until midnight, and that the walk to the Silver Line is longer than Raccuia described. “Like someone my age doesn’t take four minutes,” Recupero said.
A resident who gave only the first name Sylvia said traffic and parking already make it hard to get children to school. “Even if they respect the construction codes, actually, we need more parking,” Sylvia said.
A resident named Jose said, “neither for or against, just encouraging the conversation around the process.” Jose told the board it had just adopted a master plan that calls for exploring the end of parking minimums, while hearing real concerns from neighbors about parking, and said the City Council may need to take a larger look at on-street parking “so that the burden isn’t” carried by current residents.
Two real estate brokers spoke in favor. Jeffrey Bowen, a broker who said they no longer live in Chelsea but work in town, praised the city’s zoning direction. James Testa, of Lynnfield, said small one-bedroom units “are going to help Chelsea compete with affordability.”
The board
Rancatore backed the project. “I think having someone have a home is more important than somebody having a parking space,” Rancatore said. “I understand parking’s a nightmare, but so is not having a home.”
Member Hamza Abdul pressed the board on whom the building would serve and on the families already living nearby. “It almost sounds like every time there’s a new opportunity to come up with some kind of construction that’s coming in, we say it’s great for taxes,” Abdul said. Czernizer answered that the board “can’t control the demographic” and should not micromanage projects. Vice Chair Jordana Mather, who ran the meeting, steered the discussion back to the case.
Cecio said the department recommended approval: 15 homes, near transit, replacing an underused garage. “This kind of like infill development, the sort of, you know, 10 unit, 15 unit, 20 unit buildings, is the kind of development that we want to see in more of our denser residential neighborhoods,” Cecio said.
Czernizer’s motion recommends the special permit with conditions: residents may not get on-street parking stickers, and leases must say so; the owner must submit drainage and landscaping plans; grills and umbrellas are banned on the roof deck; the project goes through design review; and six outdoor spaces are signed for visitors. The motion carried on a voice vote.
The rest of Tuesday’s meeting, including the master plan vote, is in our full report, and every word is in the transcript.