Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors’ parking and safety concerns help block two-family project on Madison Avenue
Summary
After extensive public comment about narrow streets and loss of curb cuts, the Zoning Board failed to secure enough votes to approve Usman Aslam’s two‑family plan at 9 Madison Ave; residents warned that added units would worsen parking and emergency access on a 24‑foot‑wide street.
The Chelsea Zoning Board of Appeals declined to approve a two‑family building proposed for 9 Madison Avenue after sustained neighborhood opposition and several board members voted against granting the required variances.
Usman Aslam sought a special permit and variances to construct a two‑family home that would not meet minimum lot area per unit, side‑yard setbacks or required off‑street parking. Planning staff recommended approval as revised and noted the R‑1 district allows one‑ and two‑family homes on 7,500‑square‑foot lots, but the applicant’s lot was smaller than the ordinance requires.
Resident Raymond Bell, who said he has lived in Chelsea 53 years, urged the board to reject the proposal: "This project as proposed is too big … this street is only 24 feet wide ... it comes down to the quality of life in the neighborhood," Bell told the board. Neighbors raised specific concerns about losing two curb cuts, tandem and queued parking in front of garages, delivery vehicles blocking narrow streets and public‑safety access for emergency apparatus.
Applicant representatives explained the design includes two single‑car garages and an additional driveway space intended to keep cars off the street; they also proposed permeable pavement, two 500‑gallon dry wells to manage run‑off and retention of a 95‑year‑old tree when feasible. The board questioned whether the configuration would relieve or worsen on‑street parking and whether the proposed curb cut and driveway arrangement would create queuing that blocks the street.
When members voted, the application did not receive the required number of affirmative votes. The chair explained the applicant would need to return with a substantially different proposal — such as a single‑family design or other modifications — to be reconsidered.
