Hey, there! Log in / Register

Board rejects Dorchester condo plan that would have turned two backyards into a parking lot

Front and rear renderings of proposed condo building

Front and rear renderings of proposed condos by Tim Johnson Architect.

The Zoning Board of Appeal today rejected plans to replace a one-family house with a six-unit condo building and to create a rear parking lot for that and an existing three-family home on Dorset Street in Dorchester in large part because the proposed eight-space rear parking lot would completely eliminate the two lots' rear yards.

Nick Zozula, attorney for developer Adam Sarbaugh, who wanted to put up the condo building at 54 Dorset St., said his client and the Nguyen family, who own the three-family home at 56 Dorset St., would be willing to look at using "permeable pavers" for the lot, but board members said the loss of open space was just too much.

Board member Hansy Better Barraza added that the tripling of the "floor to area ratio" on Sarbaugh's lot was also excessive, and that even with all of the backyards dedicated to parking, she was concerned the space was too tight for eight cars - six for Sarbaugh's condos and two for the Nguyens - for drivers to maneuver without difficulty.

The board rejected the proposal without prejudice, which means the two property owners can file new plans within a year if they address the board's concerns.

Zozula said his client came up with the plan after nearby residents and the McCormack Civic Association said that parking was a vital issue for them. He said the civic group wound up voting 13-1 to support the project - and that the one vote came from a resident who felt even more parking was needed.

The BPDA opposed the proposal. "This is too much parking, too much paving," BPDA planner Jeff Hampton told the board.

City Councilors John FitzGerald, Erin Murphy and Henry Santana supported the proposal.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

up
Voting closed 25

Looks like the entire lot has no paradise left, if it ever even had any to begin with. I don't even see much unpaved paradise in the aftermath photos from the Bellflower Firestorm.

The sketchup looks like a triple decker tudor revival dingbat.

up
Voting closed 16

But only when it's made from bricks like the old Roxbury mansions.

up
Voting closed 13

I said "Two backyards and a parking lot" to the melody of "Two turntables and a microphone."

up
Voting closed 16

if the rear yard is lost to parking, part of the structure of a swimming pool. The BPDA is out of control.

up
Voting closed 21

What part of Chapter 44a do you think would give the ZBA (Not the BPDA, by the way) the authority to grant this relief?

up
Voting closed 15

54 Dorset is not a 1 story house

up
Voting closed 15

Fixed. It's a one-family house.

up
Voting closed 22

What green space would be lost?

up
Voting closed 25

to the JFK station, and the 18 bus stops on the corner. This is exactly the type of area that shouldn't need to pave everything for parking.

up
Voting closed 36

Not everyone has the T go where they need to go.

Acquire 2 kids and a spouse and lug your groceries back from Star in the winter.

Stop thinking like everyone else like you is a blow in from Ohio working in Kendall with a lonely life of bar trivia nights and that two nights a year you go Lawn On D.

up
Voting closed 39

Of disability. Are parents allowed to park in HP spaces now at the grocery store? Is it ableist to say that cargo bikes exist? Or that there are plenty of people with kids who don’t have cars?

Plus there is obviously more demand for housing than supply, so if we build more of it near the T then someone who does enjoy going to a bar every now and again (I’m with you on trivia, ugh) can live near it and you can live in Saugus or Billerica or Plympton or wherever and have all of the accessible grocery stores you want.

up
Voting closed 29

They would benefit from less cars and more accessible transit. Better sight lines at crosswalks when your wheelchair is shorter than a car.

up
Voting closed 20

I’ll allow being called disabled.

up
Voting closed 10

The government encourages this because buying a new car makes the economy look good. But in fact it drives debt and reduces our health. Our health decreased when we started driving in cars.

up
Voting closed 15

I like you, but God damn you.

up
Voting closed 10

If I choose to complete.

I once had a person running sudden death trivia say "In Holyoke" and I got the question right before he could finish the question.

up
Voting closed 13

Acquire 2 kids and a spouse and lug your groceries back from Star in the winter.

"Acquire" is some weird language — but, my wife and I raised two kids in Somerville with no car. Was it easy? Hell no — but it's very doable, and if more people would, it would get easier and better.

There are ways to do this which support parents and families and which also provide good accommodations to people with actual disabilities, including the aging.

There is no reason to fetishize the last century's weird car-centric design. Other countries don't do it, and their cities are better for it.

up
Voting closed 13

Unless you can somehow mandate the ppl buying not owning a car, the street needs new renovations to include parking. Street parking has completely disappeared due to buy/gut/reno/sell over the past few years

up
Voting closed 15

If they choose to own a car knowing that they have no place to park it, that's their problem, not the taxpayers'.

up
Voting closed 16

No, it's the neighbor's problem...

up
Voting closed 9

It's only the neighbor's problem if the neighbor chooses to own a car without securing a parking spot.

up
Voting closed 14

Was it so well planned that it took a few months to reverse?

up
Voting closed 13