Is the BRA Trying to Throw a Fast One?

UPDATE: 10/17/08
Since this blog was posted on Oct 13th, the Boston Redevelopment Authority changed their minds at the last minute and decided not to push for the Planned Development Area (PDA) zoning amendments for Chinatown at their Board meeting on Oct. 16. This may be partly due to community criticism about how the process was handled. The second piece, the PDA designation was approved at the BRA Board meeting for the Parcel 24 development. The Parcel 24 PDA designation was not an issue because the community had been informed a month before hand that the developers were applying for a PDA designation rather than a zoning variance. However, even though the BRA has backed off from the zoning amendments, this does not mean the BRA may not come back again. (Also made some edits to previous blog.)

You may have missed the announcement. You may not even care. Manny (sic) may not even know but the Boston Redevelopment Authority is trying to sneak in a fastball.

On Tuesday, October 14th, the BRA is hosting a public hearing on Proposed Zoning Changes to the Chinatown District. The purpose of the meeting is to amend the text of Article 43, the law that regulates zoning in Chinatown. Article 43 stipulates that zoning in Chinatown is limited to 100 feet unless the area is designated as a Planned Development Area (PDA). PDAs are zoning designations used by the City to give developers exemptions on height restrictions if certain requirements are met. Some of these requirements can be in the form of community benefits. The logic being: if a developer is allowed to build above and beyond the legal zoning limit, the developer should contribute a percentage of the profits as benefits back to the community that is being affected.

There are currently several PDAs in the Chinatown neighborhood: the Residential Chinatown PDA, Chinatown Gateway PDA, Turnpike Air Rights PDA, and PDA IV, the Hinge Block/Kensington development. The Residential Chinatown PDA includes Parcel A on Marginal Rd/Washington St, the site where Josiah Quincy Upper School is located, and includes the Oak Terrace development. The BRA’s primary purpose for hosting the Oct 14th meeting is because the proposed Parcel 24 development on Hudson Street and Kneeland Street is applying for a PDA designation.

Former LA Dodger Kirk Gibson once recounted after his historic home run in the 1988 World Series that he knew the Oakland A’s closer Dennis Eckersley would throw a backdoor slider with the count 3-2, “Dodger scout Mel Didier had provided a report on Eckersley that claimed with a 3-2 count against a left-handed hitter, one could be absolutely certain that Eckersley would throw a backdoor slider.”

So why does the Chinatown Blogger think the BRA is throwing a fastball this time around? While the purpoes of the meeting is for Parcel 24 to apply for a PDA, the BRA also inserted language near the bottom of the amendment that would change the area’s zoning requirements. This is a typical hit and run play by the BRA. As any developer knows, proposing to build in Chinatown beyond the zoning limit requires zoning strategy. Typically, the developer would ask for a zoning variance from the BRA. For Parcel 24, this would have been the case, except, as some community members have raised in public hearings, “that Parcel 24 LLC in the eleventh-hour requested a PDA.” So why a PDA and not a zoning variance?

Questions to he developers for Parcel 24 and the BRA were not answered satisfactory beyond the canned messages that the development needed a “zoning strategy.” The developers even said at a public meeting that, “The PDA would codify the program usage of the site from the affordable housing numbers down to where the trees are.” In fact, the developers argued, a PDA designation would be more “restrictive.” This argument is counter-intuitive because most developers want less restrictions, not more restrictions. Why is the developer applying for a zoning designation that gives them less flexibility?

The 2nd red flag was raised when the BRA suddenly announced on October 7th that a public hearing will be held to discuss zoning changes to Chinatown in a week on Oct. 14th. Zoning changes to a neighborhood? Wouldn’t that qualify as a major issue that maybe, maybe, the community should have been given more notice in advance? Was there intent there?

Before we go on about the amendment changes, let’s understand let’s summarize what currently exists on Article 43, the zoning law for the Chinatown neighborhood. Article 43 Section 16.1 states that the BRA may approve developments that are 50% reserved for residential use and includes 50% affordable units on site or a similar number off-site in Chinatown, and a minimum ratio of .07 parking space per housing unit. Developers that want to build on the Residential Chinatown PDA site must meet these requirements.

What the BRA is proposing to amend is to create a Type I and Type II PDA. Type I is unchanged from the original in Articl 43, which specifies a height of 175′ and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 6. Type II is intended for the Parcel 24 development and specifies 230′/7. The Parcel 24 development is roughly 225 feet in height. The parking ratio was also changed from .07 to .05. Nothing new here that the community didn’t know.

Next, the BRA then proposes to amend the criteria for approval of developments applying for the PDA designation:

“or a lesser percentage as determined through the Article 80 Large Project Review Process.”

What does this mean? Currently, the BRA will approve only projects that meets the 50% affordable housing requirement in exchange for height and FAR exemptions through a PDA designation. However, with the new text amendments, developers in the future may choose NOT to meet the 50% affordability requirement and apply for a zoning variance and “offer a lower percentage as determined through the Article 80 Large Project Review Process.”

The BRA is hosting the meeting on October 14th to request a PDA designation for Parcel 24. However, the BRA is also trying to sneak a fastball in, hoping that no one is looking. The community shouldn’t let this fastball go by.

This entry was posted on October 13, 2008 at 10:03 pm and is filed under WORD ON THE STREET. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

| Print