Residents Review Pros, Cons of Parking Rule Change

Charlestown residents who turned out to public meeting last week had quite a few ideas for solving the community’s parking problem, from building a new multi-story garage to car sharing to someday having vehicles that park themselves.

But for now, the city is addressing the problem by taking another look at Charlestown zoning rules that allow developers to install new curb cuts without any input from neighbors.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority held its first community meeting on the matter on Thursday, March 21. About a dozen residents attended along with five members of the Charlestown Neighborhood Council, BRA Planner Ted Schwartzberg and Danielle Valle Fitzgerald from the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services.

The discussion centered around three main options:

Option 1: Parking Required, No Review

First, the city could maintain its current zoning rules, which require any developer of new one- to two-family houses, townhouses or rowhouses in Charlestown to provide a minimum of one space per unit of on-site parking. That means a developer does not have to involve community input to install a driveway and curb cut and only goes through the public review process if seeking to waive the on-site parking requirement.

For all options, apartment buildings, condos and other large multi-unit developments would still be subject to the city’s Article 80 review process.

Option 2: Parking Not Required, City Discretion

The second option would allow parking for new one- to two-family houses, townhouses and rowhouses but not require it. If a developer wanted to build a home without parking, they could do so by right. If they wanted to include on-site parking, they would have to apply to the city for a curb cut and meet all city standards for safety, design, etc. Neighbors would not be notified of the plans.

Option 4: Parking Not Required, Public Review Possible

The fourth option would make parking for new one- to two-family houses, townhouses and rowhouses a conditional use not allowed by right, meaning the developer could build a project with no parking without city or community review. However, if the developer wanted to include parking, they would have to go through a public review process to seek a variance, so residents would be able to weigh in on any new curb cuts.

Option 3: Ruled Out

A third option, which has been ruled out by the city's legal counsel, would have made parking both required and a conditional use—meaning a developer would have to provide parking but would also have to appeal to the city for permission to provide parking. This option seems to give residents and the CNC what they want: The ability to review projects that will affect the public way before construction begins.

However, as CNC member Mark Rosenshein pointed out, “We can’t require somebody to do something and then deny them the right to do it.”

“There is no method that obligates somebody that doesn’t want to provide parking or somebody that does to both have to come to the community,” he continued. “That’s what we’re trying to do.”

CNC chairman Tom Cunha said there should be some sort of mechanism in place that requires a developer to notify neighbors when a project could impact them. A new curb cut not only takes away on-street parking space but also poses a public safety concern, with more vehicles crossing sidewalks.

“Years ago you wouldn’t even think about doing something without knocking on your neighbor’s door. And unfortunately now we have to legislate. We can’t think it’s going to happen,” Cunha said. “So we need to say [if] you’re going to impact the neighborhood, please talk to these people.”

Alternative Options

One resident at the meeting offered an alternative option, which could give the community the oversight it wants.

Steve Spinetto suggested a zoning change that would require developers of new one- to two-family houses, townhouses and rowhouses to provide one parking space per unit but would also prohibit garage doors from facing the public way (roads and sidwalks).

Because of the size of most lots in Charlestown, that would likely force the developer to seek a variance—triggering the public review process. After community input, the city would then either allow the developer to install a front-facing garage and curb cut or allow for no parking on-site, if that’s what would fit best in the location.

Though this rule would essentially do what Option 3 does—require parking but force a developer to seek permission for the same parking—it does so in a more roundabout way, and might be considered legal, Rosenshein said.

Schwartzberg said he would bring the idea to legal counsel for review.

Another alternative suggested at the meeting was to require different rules for different project sizes—a one- or two-unit development might not have an on-site parking requirement, while townhouse or rowhouse projects would, for example.

And, as Schwartzberg suggested, the community also could be further divided into sub-zoning districts, with different rules for different areas.

Others suggested the city require developers to help fund construction of auxiliary parking areas, or to encourage residents to use ride-sharing or public transportation.

Past and Present Concerns

The CNC Development Committee first began meeting on the topic back in November 2012, based on concerns members had heard from a number of residents around town.

A rowhouse project on Bartlett Street, located across from the Warren-Prescott School, introduced three new units and three new garage doors and curb cuts, causing some concern among parents walking children to school, who now had to worry about vehicles backing up over the sidewalk.

Another rowhouse project on Old Rutherford Avenue introduced five new driveways separated by a thin section of curb, which removed quite a bit of parking space on that street.

Despite those issues, not everyone feels comfortable changing the zoning rules.

Charlestown resident Alice Krapf said she felt the current rule could provide adequate oversight if the community urged the city to enforce it.

She read from the rule that “such facilities [new garages and driveways] shall have maneuvering areas and appropriate means of vehicular access to the street and shall be designed so as not to constitute a nuisance or a hazard or unreasonable impediment to traffic.”

“I think the very first line of defense here is to go to the Department of Public Works and have them enforce this,” Krapf said.

However, Rosenshein said that across the city the DPW has, in the past, not interpreted this rule in a way that would result in community review. Having to red line the other side of a street or move a fire hydrant to create a driveway is not necessarily seen by the DPW as a nuisance or hazard.

Others worried about choosing an option (2 or 4) that would allow a developer to build new units without parking—not helping Charlestown’s parking problem.

CNC member Peg Bradley wondered if picking the fourth option would simply reverse the issue—from unexpected curb cuts to no off-street parking at all.

“The problem is we’re just going to flip the cart over and it’s going to be the opposite thing,” she said.

Next Steps

Schwartzberg said he would take residents’ concerns, questions and ideas to the city’s legal counsel and the BRA Board for review and would return at a future meeting with answers.

Rosenshein said he hoped to draw more attendance at upcoming meetings on the subject and that CNC members would look at how to better advertise the meetings—whether by sending out emails or letters to residents or other means.

“We’re going to spend a lot of time talking about what it takes to put more people in the room,” he said.