Hey, there! Log in / Register

Board approves Mission Hill building with small apartments, new patio area for neighboring restaurants

Architect's rendering

Architect's rendering.

The Zoning Board of Appeal today approved a four-story, 24-unit apartment building on Burney Street on Mission Hill that will include creation of a 2,400-square foot, brick-lined "laneway" on which restaurants along neighboring Tremont Street will be allowed to create outdoor patio seating.

As approved by the BPDA last year, New Urban Partners' building aat 9-11 Burney St. will bar students from renting any of the apartments - and tenants will not be eligible for neighborhood parking permits. The building will have five parking spaces.

The building was designed for the city's compact living pilot, the goal of which is to create units with less than astronomical rents in exchange for units smaller than typically allowed under Boston zoning.

To make up for the reduced in-unit space, the building will have a common dining area, roof deck, a lounge and media room, a conference room, a gym, a library, and a kitchen.

9-11 Burney St. documents.

Free tagging: 


I'm sure the prices will still be ridiculous, but I applaud the compact living trend. Wouldn't mind restricting all students rather than just undergrads, but still a positive step for working people.

The last thing this city needs is more cars, but withholding resident stickers seems a bit classist and punitive. And if you're trying to discourage cars, why settle for seven fewer bike racks in the final plans?!

Still, I will look forward to seeing this.


Someone taking courses to maintain their continuing education credits?

Someone in a Work/RN program? Someone in a compact master's degree program? How about a civil engineer taking courses to get their PE at night?

Or how about this: just admit that discrimination by occupation is ridiculous and unacceptable?


...with sufficient income from wages? I think that would be an acceptable definition, and allow for part-time students or continuing ed or grad students with salaries or fellowships or stipends.

What if I'm working part-time while looking for a second job or able to live partly off savings/Social Security/etc?

I'm also not clear on why part-time students are ok but, say, a full-time student who also works a work-study job is verboten here.

We talked about this in a neighborhood meeting in my neighborhood where they also wanted to restrict students as a condition of supporting development. We all agreed that working adults, parents, et al who decide to get a degree would be fine, as would traditional undergrads living with a parent or other relative. What the neighborhood does want to prevent is any more houses full of drunken 21-year-olds screaming all night and puking all over the sidewalks. People suggested that it be required that tenants be employed, but housing discrimination based on source of income is illegal, and many of us said it's important that our neighborhood welcomes people who are on disability/retirement or are receiving cash assistance/child support/whatever while staying home to parent.

I think what they ended up settling on was just using the language "traditional undergraduates, unless living with a relative," because there's no protected class issue there. The language isn't solid legal language though, so an unscrupulous developer could still rent to whomever they want and then say they're non-traditional undergrads because they listen to Barry Manilow or something.

The residential sticker situation is ridiculous. It is bad enough without existing residents feeling entitled to take it away from the undeserving. How about refusing resident stickers to everyone with a driveway and or garage? I am ready to support abolishing to whole program.

Does that mean that people get a tax rebate if they are denied a sticker?

Or if they don't get a sticker?

they called this a dorm or prison.

Okay, boomer.

Isn't the school building on St Al to the north of the basilica offices empty? Why can't anything get done with that?


Seems like it'd be ripe for stereotyping or judgements based on "looking young". And how is "student" defined anyway - do grad students qualify? What about someone attending school part-time?


Maybe they could mandate a W-2 and employment verification letter from the employer? That is pretty standard. You haven't rented in a while have you?


and I've never had to provide a W-2 or proof of employment when applying for a lease, even when I was a student. But...even when I was a student, I would have been able to provide those, because like a lot of other students, I also worked part-time - so I'm not sure how a W-2 or proof of employment would prove you weren't a student?

Would it be that much of a hardship to produce these documents to prove your income? Most people think it's reasonable, right? I just don't understand where you're coming from on this. Do you not work?

I don't think its a hardship to provide these, I just dont see how you reliably prove that some is or isn't a student based on these documents. Really, what I'm looking for is the official "this is what we're defining as a student and how we'll determine that" - right now without that it feels like this is just leading towards discrimination based on youth and income more than anything official.

The thing that they are forgetting is the kind of students they are trying to avoid. Students that share single family homes and 4 bedroom apartment party loudly every weekend. Students and other young people that live alone in a micro studio go out to socialize.

there's nothing that says that professionals or even retirees won't have loud parties or whatever. If that's what they're trying to avoid, then it sounds like the lease needs to have more stringent noise clauses etc as opposed to trying to stop one kind of behavior by focusing on a mostly unrelated one.

Strong noise canceling construction is a requirement for density.

Well designed building, nice to see that it fits into the scale of the neighborhood buildings and the materials, at least in the rendering look good. And nice placement of the amenity space on the ground floor:)

I remember seeing a neighbor hog tied and robbed the week before there were two murdered on Burney in 99. Now we are arguing what is considered affordable to live here :)


And positive that violence like that doesn't permanently devalue a property for 100 years.

The patio between the buildings looks great. Nice to see something designed for people instead of cars.