RE: [AB2006] We don't support a PDA at St. Gabriel's.
AngelaT
Thanks Eva. We do care about our neighbors. Yes, as Allston-Brighton residents, we stand united against the BPDA turning the precious few Conservation Protection Sub districts that Brighton has into PDAs.
Best,
Angela
From: allstonbr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:allstonbr...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Eva Webster
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 8:01 AM
To: AllstonBrighton2006
Cc: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com; Homeowners Union of Allston-Brighton
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Should we support a PDA at St. Gabriel's?
Hello Colleen, Angela, Bruce and others — thank you for validating my August 2nd posting re. the proposed PDA designation for St. Gabriel’s. I’m so glad that folks are paying attention to this important issue, and that they care.
Just FYI, I also received the following message from Shirley Kressel (she is very knowledgable about matters concerning the BRA/BPDA):
On 8/2/17, 9:38 AM, “Shirley Kressel” <--> wrote:
Eva, you are exactly correct. PDA, meaning Planned Development Area, is the opposite: an area of an acre or more (and sometimes less, as I found out the hard way…) where the developer makes his own laws. Forever. It’s even more unplanned and unregulated than the rest of the city (except for the urban renewal areas, which are really “Deadwood") because of the elimination of legal recourse. You should fight PDAs tooth and nail.
Of course, Shirley meant that the community should all fight it — not just me — nobody can do it alone.
At this point, it is “only” the St. Gabriel’s Conservation Protection Subdistrict (CPS) that the BPDA, at the behest of developers, wants to deprive of zoning in perpetuity. But if this maneuver succeeds, in the future they will also try to eliminate zoning protections of the Cenacle, Mt. St. Joseph, and the Crittenton Conservation Protection Subdistricts — and by doing so, make the community and the neighbors defenseless against excessive development on those sites down the road.
As Allston-Brighton residents, we need to stand united against the BPDA turning the precious few Conservation Protection Subdistricts that Brighton has into PDAs. PDAs are not about protecting the neighborhood — they are about empowering developers to do whatever they want (they can repeatedly amend the PDA to change the program and to increase density — the sky is the limit — and disregard the neighbors and the neighborhood as a whole, which at that point no longer has any recourse).
Case in point: the Circle Cinema development. The BPDA made the Cinema/Applebee’s parcel into PDA, the project got sold, and the new developer changed the plans and the program (condo-ready apartments that the original plan called for became rentals for well-to-do seniors). A public meeting or two were held about those changes, but it was just window dressing.
This means that whatever Cabot Cabot and Forbes is promising to do at St. Gabriel’s cannot be trusted. Once they get a PDA, the project may get sold — and even if it doesn’t get sold, much of what the neighborhood is now being promised can go out the window via amendments to the PDA.
However, if the BPDA and the Zoning Commission properly rezoned St. Gabriel’s (including the Avalon parcel) to allow reasonable new development (other aspects can be codified in a legally biding MOU), the developers, or their successors, would have no choice but to build within the new zoning — and the area would continue to be protected.
The St. Gabriel’s Impact Advisory Group is meeting tonight. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the IAG will advocate strongly for what is in the best interest of the neighborhood (a PDA is not — it’s really too high a price to pay).
Eva
On 8/14/17, 5:11 PM, "punim123 via AllstonBrighton2006" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Good for Eva ,
I have not gone to any meetings about St Gabriel's........ however I certainly have interest in Allston/Brighton development...... I trust Eva to protect " our interests " as opposed to developers interest !
The Community needs to support this kind of thinking to preserve our neighborhoods......That starts with our ELECTED OFFICIALS.... Who seem to have a different agenda much of the time.... But then again......What Are they Thinking ?
Bruce Felton
Allston Resident -- 23 years
On 8/14/17, 3:55 PM, "AngelaT" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Ang...@travelcoll.com> wrote:
Agree with Eva J It means that we oppose a PDA at St. Gabriel.
Angela
From: 'colleen salmon' via AllstonBrighton2006 [mailto:allstonbr...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:48 PM
To: allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Should we support a PDA at St. Gabriel's?
Thank you Eva. All good to know and I agree with you.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 3:46 AM, Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> wrote:
For those who missed it, there was a BPDA meeting about zoning for the St. Gabriel’s project last night. Here are some of my thoughts on that issue.
In the meeting, the BPDA insisted that this project has to become a PDA (Planned Development Area) — otherwise, they said, it would need lots of variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which could jeopardize financing.
Yes — doing a project of this size by obtaining variances is not practical or desirable. Zoning variances can be appealed to court — and no developer/investor wants to risk that if they can help it. Also, if the project is delayed for some reasons, ZBA variances may expire (if I’m not mistaken, they are good for 2 years — but the City is happy to renew them if need be).
So that leaves us with the PDA option — which I’m opposed to (more on this later) — or does it?
The BPDA did not mention that there is a third option — establishing a new St. Gabriel’s Protection Subdistrict (very similar to the zoning Subdistrict that was created to enable the Chestnut Hill Waterworks development in the early 2000s — page 25 in Article 51 http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/219fb7a1-90ac-4f11-81dc-14ecd99bddda ).
Why would the BPDA not mention this option? I think it’s because the developer wants a PDA — so that is what the BPDA is trying to sell to us.
There is one problem: increasing the number of PDAs in Allston-Brighton is a very bad idea. PDA is a tool that is used to enable large real estate developments — it gives the BPDA the ability to green-light such projects, and later changes, without having to contend with zoning constraints, or risking that abutters take the matter to court.
Once a PDA is designated, it marks that site as a place where more development, no matter how incompatible with the surrounding area, can happen down the road — because normal zoning no longer applies.
In the future, any mayor and BPDA director in office at that time may be persuaded by owners of those sites that more should be built on them. Even if the current office holders/decision makers in City Hall believe or hope that the St. Gabriel’s project, if built as a PDA, would remain unchanged — there is absolutely no guarantee that future owners of the site will not want to build more density/height down the road. (The current plan calls for wood-framed buildings — easy to tear down when they start aging — or even sooner.)
After all, New Balance got permission to build a large 17-story apartment building on Guest Street — so why wouldn’t something like that be possible within other (current or future) PDAs in Allston-Brighton?
When the New Balance PDA was first established, we didn’t hear anything about 17-story buildings — and yet one such structure is nearing the end of construction right now, and another one (the hotel, not yet built) may end up being of similar height. Given all the other uses there (tons of office space and big spectator sports facilities), plus the upcoming Stop & Shop development, the impact of all that density on Brighton’s major roads may be crippling. And it seems like most people in A-B have no idea what’s coming.
Let’s assume the following scenario: Cabot Cabot & Forbes (St. Gabriel’s current developer) succeeds in getting a PDA designation which outlines the project (uses, density, height, etc.) as currently proposed — but since the situation with St. Elizabeth’s parking is unresolved, the project gets put on hold. Or perhaps soon after the approval, CCF gets an offer from a different real estate investment trust looking to milk the site for more profits.
Anything can happen in the next few years. CCF’s current investors, or new owners, may decide that the project that was approved in 2017 was not ambitious enough — that building just 5-6 story buildings would be a missed opportunity. They would be able to make a case to the BPDA that we need even more housing (it’s an endless excuse to overbuild — especially since protecting the quality of life in the neighborhood is not high on the BPDA’s agenda). So why not amend the PDA, and let 15+ story buildings get built on the St. Gabriel’s site?
However, if the site had normal zoning, good luck getting ZBA variances for such a large project, and getting it done. As the BPDA admitted last night, you can’t get financing for large projects based on variances. But a PDA opens the door to what is not possible under thoughtful zoning.
The BPDA made it sound last night like a PDA at St. Gabriel’s would be for our own benefit — far from it. Any protections or restrictions that a PDA language originally includes can always be changed/amended — and the community has no power to prevent those changes. PDAs are highly desired by developers — since the designation makes the site far more valuable (its potential as a money-maker greatly increased vis-a-vis normal zoning) — but having lots of PDAs is not good for a neighborhood that aspires to control its density and retain its traditional neighborhood-like scale and appearance.
Having PDAs in formerly industrial areas along the Pike is one thing — but having PDAs scattered throughout the residential parts of the neighborhood in our Conservation Protection Subdistricts (such as St. Gabriel’s CPS, Cenacle CPS, Crittenton CPS, Mt. Saint Joseph’s Academy CPS, and so on) is a perversion of what those Conservation Subdistricts should be all about.
Enabling development in CPS areas should not be an opportunity for the BPDA to just scrap all zoning protections, and increase its own, and developers control and power via PDAs. If CPS areas need to be developed, the BPDA should ensure that they are carefully and properly zoned as Protection Subdistricts, that historic buildings are landmarked, and that open space that can be saved becomes protected via iron-clad preservation easements.
Any other issues with those developments, such as mitigation and community benefits, can be taken care of via a Memorandum of Agreement between the developer and the BPDA. This is the proper way to do this — and that’s how it’s done in Brookline for example (they establish an overlay zoning district, essentially a subdistrict, if they need/want to accommodate a larger development).
I think that those of us who want Allston-Brighton to remain a neighborhood, and not become just an extension of downtown, should adamantly oppose a PDA designation for St. Gabriel’s. Let the BPDA zone the site (together with the adjacent Avalon parcel) into St. Gabriel’s Protection Subdistrict — and let new zoning enable those projects, so they would not need variances for the project to proceed.
If we roll over on this, additional PDAs will be established in beautiful, green areas of Brighton — and current and future Brighton residents will have no control over the volume of development on those sites.
Lastly — a note to Tony D’Isidoro:
In yesterday’s meeting, when I asserted that PDAs are a BPDA tool, and not used outside of Boston (though some other large American cities may use them), you vehemently disagreed with me. You later told me that you are familiar with a development of single-family homes somewhere outside of Boston that was a PDA, which allowed to specify details, such as what fences the owners could have, and so on.
I have a feeling that this was a PUD (Planned Unit Development), not a PDA.
Fwd: Planned unit development - Wikipedia
In any case, kindly provide proof that PDAs are used in other cities and towns Massachusetts. If you can prove it to me, I will believe you then.
Best,
Eva
--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
To post to this group, send email to
AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.