Chelsea Planning Board approves two‑family project at 73 Library St.; bars off‑street parking, requires design review

Attorney Richard Linz represented the applicant and outlined the proposal for a new two‑family rental at 73 Library Street, a vacant 2,900‑square‑foot lot.

For the record, I’m Richard Linz, with the business address at 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner, David Bennett, he told the board.

The board approved the project by a 7–2 vote, attaching multiple conditions including mandatory design review, a drainage plan, landscaping and lighting reviews, and a requirement that the project not provide off‑street parking. The approval also bars participation in the city parking program and requires that units not be used as short‑term rentals; the motion included a suggested minimum lease term of one year. The applicant is scheduled to return to the board on Feb. 11 for follow‑up review.

Why it matters: the decision allows construction of two separate family units on an undersized lot in a primarily multi‑unit block while prioritizing streetscape design and neighborhood green space over providing private off‑street stalls. Board members and neighbors debated tradeoffs between adding off‑street parking and preserving front and rear open space, and raised concerns about the building facade and how cars would maneuver if parking were added.

Project details and code relief requested

Linz said the plan calls for two four‑bedroom, two‑bathroom units (one at the lower/first level combined with a living area, the other across the upper levels). The applicant requested relief from the zoning code for minimum lot area, a front‑yard encroachment (the front stair encroaches about three feet, leaving roughly a seven‑foot front setback at the stair), and relief from the parking requirement; the applicant said it could accept either no parking or two off‑street spaces if the board preferred that option.

The applicant noted a rear setback of a little more than 21 feet and at least 10 feet of side access to the rear. The proposal showed potential space for two tandem or rear spaces but the design raised questions about maneuverability, required special permits and whether adding parking would create conflicts with usable open space requirements under the zoning code.

Board discussion and neighborhood input

Board members and members of the public repeatedly raised aesthetics, setbacks and parking. Several board members said the current facade and entry needed redesign and asked for a design‑review condition. Some participants advocated preserving green space and removing the existing curb cut so the public could gain additional on‑street parking; others said the neighborhood is generally short on parking and off‑street spaces could help existing residents.

There was also discussion about practical details if parking were added: driveway width, a required five‑foot setback from the building, turning radius for vehicles, and whether tandem spots would serve only one unit. The applicant and architect said they were open to revising the design based on the board’s guidance.

Formal action

The board approved the application, 7–2. The motion (mover: Planning Board member who made the motion; seconder: Planning Board member who seconded) approved the two‑family development with conditions including: no off‑street parking; mandatory full design review; lighting and landscaping review; a drainage plan; the project cannot participate in the city parking program; a condition prohibiting short‑term rentals and suggesting a minimum one‑year tenancy; and review of fencing and other standard planning board conditions. The applicant will return for follow‑up review on Feb. 11.

What the approval does not do

The board’s approval grants the requested zoning relief conditioned on the design and operational requirements described above. It does not, by itself, convey final building permits; the applicant will still need applicable permits and any special permits required by the zoning code and must meet conditions set by the board and by the building department. The board also did not adopt a requirement for a specific construction material (brick, etc.), though the applicant said it would explore masonry or brick on the front facade as part of design review.

Next steps

The applicant will return to the planning board on Feb. 11 for follow‑up and to present any revised design materials. Separate permits and any required special permits or Board of Appeal hearings remain part of the municipal approval process.