By Adam Swift
A three-story, three-unit home proposed for 10 Glenside Ave. is too big for its parcels and creates some parking issues with the adjacent property at 8 Glenside Ave., according to a majority of members of the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council Zoning Committee.
At a virtual meeting Wednesday night, the neighborhood zoning advisory committee voted not to recommend approval of the project to the full JP Neighborhood Council.
The project on the currently empty lot is being proposed by JP developer Croan McCormack, who also owns the neighboring property at 8 Glenside Avenue.
Much of the discussion on Wednesday night centered on the three angled parking spots under a second-floor overhang, and how the cars would need to maneuver on the neighboring property.
John Moran, the attorney for the developer, said there would be a use easement for the cars to use part of 8 Glenside Ave. He also noted that an easement would be acquired for the parking situation if McCormack ever sold one of the properties.
“This is really tight, cramped, and impractical,” said zoning committee member Gerard O’Connor.
Moran noted that the city’s inspectional services division did not raise any concerns about parking maneuverability at 10 Glenside. He also noted that there is currently limited parking at 8 Glenside, including one car McCormack stores there offseason. Since parking spaces are not required under the zoning at 8 Glenside, Moran said there is the possibility of using that lot to expand the 10 Glenside proposed parking area.
Zoning committee member David Seldin reiterated concerns about parking, and also noted that the proposed three-story building was too large for the lot containing under 4,000 square feet.
“That’s a very large house on a small lot, I’m concerned there is too much going on,” he said.
However, zoning committee member Omer Hecht said he was in favor of the project, noting that it was similar in size to other projects that have been approved for the area.
Longtime JP resident Laurie Goldman said that in addition to the parking issues, and parking issues in general in the neighborhood, she was concerned that there was no room for snow removal on the property. Goldman added that developing the parcel would also remove existing community green space.
Zoning committee member Kevin Moloney made the motion to deny a recommendation for approval.
“I’m wondering what the objection to the project is,” said Hecht. “It’s three new units.”
As several of the other committee members had previously mentioned, Moloney said he believed the proposal was too big for the lot, and that he had concerns with the angled parking spots.
“I don’t object to building a multi-family home here, just not as this one is designed,” added Seldin.
He noted that the proposed units in the building are between 1,400 and 1,600 square feet each, and that smaller individual units might make the project more palatable.
Zoning committee member Lee Goodman said it seemed like a two-unit building with two parking spots near the back of the lot might do the trick to get more buy-in.
In other business, the JPNC Zoning Committee gave favorable recommendations for a proposed curb cut at 183 Chestnut Ave. for off street parking, as well as the gut renovation and expansion of a home at 48 Waterman Road.