Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zba Decisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board approves variances and permits; larger projects set for further review
Summary
The Chelsea Zoning Board of Appeals approved several variances and special permits on Sept. 24 — including parking and drainage‑conditioned approvals — while two major projects (230 Broadway and 469 Washington Ave.) were held for further review and public comment.
The Chelsea Zoning Board of Appeals approved a series of variances and special permits at its Sept. 24 meeting and deferred two large proposals for additional review.
Among the actions taken, the board approved the corrected variance vote for case 2024‑1753 (Hertz Street, Rafael Serrano), granting relief for an extension of an existing nonconformity and related lot‑area variances with the same conditions previously approved. The board also approved case 2024‑13 (57 Palmer Street) after the applicant reduced the building width and provided a drainage plan; conditions include pervious pavers for walkways and driveway, a detailed landscape plan, exterior lighting and an approved drainage plan.
A special permit for two off‑street parking spaces at 11 John Street (Arturo Hernandez) was approved with conditions: the two tenant spaces must be clearly painted and signed, the lease must notify tenants of the two‑space limit and provide contact information for the owner, the spaces are limited to smaller passenger vehicles (no trucks or large vans), and Inspectional Services is the enforcement authority. The board recorded dissenting votes on that case, but the motion carried.
The board granted a special permit for a curb cut at 125 Beacon Place and a special permit for a beauty salon at 32 Central Ave. A minor modification at 51 Library Street (adding bedrooms to townhouse units where parking remains adequate) was classified as "minor."
Two major items were held for further review. A proposal for 230 Broadway to expand an existing building to 48 units (adding 30 new units and offering eight inclusionary units) drew substantial discussion over parking, parking relief, unit mix and accessibility; the matter will return after planning‑board review. A subdivision and two‑family development proposal at 469 Washington Ave. prompted neighbor concern about drainage, property lines and on‑site construction impacts; the applicant offered a construction‑management plan and will return after the planning board review.
