By Michael Coughlin Jr.

      On Monday, the city’s Planning Department hosted an Impact Advisory Group (IAG) meeting in which plans for constructing two buildings at 3430 and 3440 Washington Street were presented to attendees.

      Specifically, the project would construct a six-story building at 3430 Washington Street — the current site of an auto body shop — containing 141 units, retail space, common area space, and 78 parking spaces.

      The aforementioned building would then be separated by Rockvale Circle, and on the other side at 3440 Washington Street — the site of Hatoff’s Gas Station — a five-story building with 115 units, retail space, common area space, and 64 parking spaces would be built.

      In terms of the unit mix for these buildings, 3430 Washington would contain 59 studios, 52 one-bedrooms, 17 one-bedroom+studys, five two-bedrooms, and eight two-bedroom+studys.

      Whereas 3440 Washington would have 52 studios, 38 one-bedrooms, 14 one-bedroom+studys, nine two-bedrooms, and two two-bedroom+studys.

      Regarding affordability, between both buildings, there are plans for a total of 51 inclusionary development policy (IDP) units, which Attorney Marc LaCasse says will be “evenly distributed based upon the composition of the balance of the market rate units in terms of size.”

      As the presentation continued, LaCasse went over landscaping plans. Each parcel is slated to have green buffers around it, and there are plans for street trees down Rockvale Circle, enlarged sidewalks in front of the buildings, and more.

      Later, LaCasse went over other features of the project, such as roof decks, garden amenity spaces outside on the second floors, and retail space at street level.

      After the presentation, members of the IAG were able to provide comments and ask questions. One major topic that dominated the discussion early on was how this proposal relates to another proposal from the owner of Hatoff’s Gas Station to expand. Caroline Peters, Jamaica Plain’s Neighborhood Liaison, noted during the meeting that the Hatoff’s expansion proposal is slated to go before the Zoning Board of Appeal on November 26th.

      Regarding these proposals, which at least one IAG Member called conflicting, Ebony DaRosa of the Planning Department said, “It is a separate proposal from this one. The Hatoff’s proposal is a ZBA case and not an Article 80 project.”

      Joseph Hassell, Managing Partner of Boston Real Estate Capital (the developer), also chimed in on this topic.

      Hassell discussed timing and said the project would most likely be done in phases. Later, he said, “The current owner of the gas station has his own agenda, and it is an entirely unrelated separate proposal.”

      “They ultimately have nothing to do with each other.”

      Josh Hanye, an IAG member, called Hassell’s characterization of the projects as unrelated misleading, emphasizing that they are the same piece of property.

      He later expressed that, for the neighborhood, these projects are not unrelated in that residents have to pay attention to and respond to both engagement processes. Hanye added that this could potentially create constant construction in the area in the future.

      As the conversation continued, Hanye and other IAG members, like Michael Babcock, suggested pausing this review process to focus on the Hatoff’s expansion proposal.

      While some IAG members wanted to focus on the gas station proposal, others, like Jesse Kanson-Benanav, thought it would be prudent to stay the course.

      “The notion of delaying this process in order to settle that first, although that certainly seems like it does need to be settled, would actually be denying and delaying the production of homes that we desperately need,” said Kanson-Benanav.

      As this discussion continued, Hassell followed up and said that he understood the concern and confusion but maintained, “I apologize. I don’t make the rules of the process, and I can’t control it. I have to go through my thing, and the other thing is a separate process.”

      Following that statement, the conversation shifted to the buildings and the project itself. As with most meetings of this nature, there were several different opinions.

      For example, some members of the IAG were concerned with the size of the buildings, which they say dwarfs abutting homes, its proposed setbacks, and the amount of parking.

      On the other hand, other members of the IAG did not want to see a size reduction and even wanted less parking.

      Some IAG members also expressed concern about the project’s compliance with PLAN: JP/Rox. Specifically, the rear setback was one aspect of disagreement in that regard.

      As the conversation unfolded, other aspects of the project were revealed. Hassell indicated that the plan is for the buildings to meet passive house standards and be all-electric.

      He also noted that the retail space is planned to be configured so that parking can be replaced and the retail can be expanded if demand changes.

      Ultimately, the discussion touched on several topics before the meeting ended, such as trash, affordability, height stepbacks, and more.

      It should be noted that DaRosa emphasized that there are more meetings to come regarding this project.

      To view a recording of this meeting and to learn more about the project, visit https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/3430-3440-washington-street.

                 Additionally, a public meeting about the project is planned for October 29th at 6:00 p.m. on Zoom. More information about that meeting and how to attend can be found at the link mentioned above.