A Mattapan neighborhood association thought it had a firm agreement with the developer of a mixed-use project near the busy intersection of Morton Street and Blue Hill Avenue — until that developer asked the city for permission to make big changes.
Under the revised proposal from developer George Minasidis — which was presented at a community meeting last week — the housing units would change from condos to rental apartments and increase by 50 percent, while the number of parking spaces would be halved. A planned retail space would also be eliminated.
“To me, that’s unethical,” said David Lopes, a former president of the Wellington Hill Neighborhood Association. “’If you’re going to change your end of the agreement, we need to change our end of the agreement, which means we should get more community benefits.”
It’s a common scenario across Boston, according to at-large Councilor Michelle Wu, because of inconsistent zoning in neighborhoods and the power of the Boston Planning and Development Agency to decide the final shape of proposed developments.
“Even in the cases when there’s been a community process, people come in good faith to talk about the trade-offs [and] come to some resolution, it’s not infrequent that the project might get sold to a new developer. And then they come in for a change of project notification, [and] it starts all over,” Wu said in an interview with WGBH News.
“It would be in everyone’s best interest,” she continued, “if we gave everyone the same sense of what is allowable in a certain area because that is what matches a community’s needs. We are all better off [if] there’s more consistency and predictability.”
Jonathan Greeley, the BPDA’s director of development review, said in a recent phone interview the city agency has not made any decisions on the Mattapan project.
“I think we expect that there may be some pushback from the community, and that’s the value of having the community meeting and other engagements,” he said. “Just because it’s a [notice of project change] and somebody’s asking for relief from their previous approval, does not mean we’re going to grant that relief.”
The development team said the changes proposed since the agreement last year with the neighborhood association are intended to make the project financially viable.
“At that time, economics were a lot better,” said Minasidis. “The economy was a little bit better, so you could spend a little bit more money … but things right now are a little different.”
At a public meeting in Mattapan last week, neighbors identified as sore points the reduced parking and the shift to rental units.
“I think the building is a beautiful building, but it does not accommodate for all those who live there, and that’s not fair to me,” one woman said. “The Mattapan community is not interested in all this building [without] adequate parking.”
Another meeting-goer added: “Mattapan people have cars.”
The development site at the corner of Blue Hill Avenue and Deering Road is a pivot point in Mattapan, where rows of three-family homes along Deering connect to a bustling commercial strip with scarce parking. At the meeting, residents complained of frequently maneuvering around double-parked cars on the avenue and struggling to find parking near their homes.
Jonathan Garland, the project’s architect, responded to parking concerns by noting the development's proximity to two commuter rail stations, several bus routes and the Mattapan trolley, which connects riders to the Red Line.
“I can’t remember the last project that’s had a one-to-one parking ratio,” Garland said. “Don’t take this the wrong way, please, but these are suburban qualities. In the city, everybody’s touching elbows, and you have to live with less, in the sense of something’s got to give.”
The 2018 memorandum of understanding signed between the developer and Wellington Hill Neighborhood Association called for 21 condos on four floors and an underground garage with a parking space for each unit.
A BPDA official said such agreements are not binding, because the agency can’t enforce an agreement it wasn’t a party to.
Under the dozen changes Minasidis and his team have requested, a fifth floor would be added, the number of units would increase to 32 and parking would be reduced to 11 spaces.
When the original proposal went before the city’s Zoning Board of Appeal in 2018, members noted it was an owner-occupied model with more multi-bedroom units than singles.
“What’s interesting about this project is, you know, it’s not stacked with studios and one[-bedroom units],” said Anthony Pisani, then a board member, at the time.
“And for sale, too,” chimed in chair Christine Araujo.
The board granted conditional approval to the project as originally proposed.
At the meeting last week, one neighborhood resident questioned the property owner about his intentions after the building’s construction.
“Are you going to sell it after you build it?” she asked.
The development team responded that the units could become rent-to-own after five years.
“So your decision on selling depends upon your renters and your commercial renters [and] your profits from those?” that meeting-goer continued.
“’There’s no way that somebody’s going to make a profit by building this building and selling it,” Minasidis said.
The project lies in the district of Councilor Timothy McCarthy. In a statement to WGBH News, the outgoing councilor noted the neighbors’ requests for more parking. McCarthy said he’s “certain we will come to an agreement on what size is appropriate.”
To complicate the situation, Minasidis signed the community MOU and the BPDA’s official notice of the proposed changes as “owner” and “managing member” respectively of 1199-1203 Blue Hill LLC., a limited liability company that does not exist in the state’s database of corporations. According to records from the state secretary’s office, his name is currently connected to two corporate entities: a former contracting company that went out of business in the early 1990s and a nine-year-old painting company, which owns the proposed development site.
Asked about the unregistered LLC, Minasidis at first denied including the label on official project paperwork, then stammered and summoned Garland to field the question.
“It’s been in existence, you just typed it in wrong,” Garland said. “If you type in a business name, just type it in without the L-L-C, and it will show up.”
A press official with the secretary of state's office told WGBH News the corporations division was “not able to find any record” of 1199-1203 Blue Hill LLC filing with the agency.
For its part, the BPDA said it does not require developers to provide certificates of existence or good standing in order to bring business before the agency.
"Any property owner and/or partners they may have in a joint venture or otherwise, are allowed to come in and seek a project,”’ Greeley said in a phone interview.
He added that while there is no formal background check, the agency does ask for disclosure and then verifies which companies and individuals are affiliated with a development team. In a statement, the agency said its legal department does a more thorough check before entering into legal agreements with developers.
The Wellington Hill Neighborhood Association is deciding its official stance on the project, but Lopes said he wants the development team to come back to the bargaining table so that the community can weigh in on the proposal.
“Other than that, I would do whatever I can to fight against this development because they didn’t give us the respect to come back and meet with us first,” Lopes said.
