A proposal for 30 condominiums near the intersection of Grove and Washington streets in West Roxbury remains undecided after Boston’s Zoning Board of Appeal postponed action amid objections from residents of a neighboring condominium building, according to Universal Hub.
The dispute centers on parking access. The proposed Grove Street development would use an access arrangement shared with an existing 17-unit condominium building on Washington Street. Residents of that building appeared before the board to oppose having the larger development use the same driveway, Universal Hub reported.
The developer behind the Grove Street proposal also built the Washington Street condominiums. That connection puts the proposed project alongside an earlier development by the same builder, but residents of the completed property made clear that they opposed the shared-access component of the new plan.
The board deferred action after the developer’s attorney requested additional time. The postponement leaves the proposal pending rather than approved or rejected. Universal Hub’s account identifies the driveway arrangement as a focus of the residents’ opposition, but the available report does not establish how that disagreement might be resolved.
Parking access links the two properties
The proposal involves separate condominium buildings on streets that meet at the intersection: the planned 30-unit property on Grove Street and the existing 17-unit property around the corner on Washington Street. Under the developer’s plan, parking access would connect their operations through a common driveway arrangement.
For the Washington Street residents who addressed the board, that shared use was the point of contention. Their objections concerned access serving their own building as well as the proposed development next door. The larger project would contain 13 more units than the existing building, though the report does not specify the number of parking spaces proposed for either property.
The distinction between the two buildings is important to the proposal now before the board. The Washington Street condominiums have already been built; the Grove Street project is the development awaiting action. The shared-access plan would link an established residential property to a new one, and the people objecting were residents of that established building.
No decision on the proposal
The hearing produced a delay, not a ruling on whether the new condominiums should proceed. Although residents urged opposition to the proposed arrangement, the board did not take final action on the development. The developer’s attorney instead sought more time before the matter advanced.
The available account does not provide a revised design, an alternative parking-access arrangement or a date for another board hearing. It also does not establish whether the developer plans to change the driveway proposal. For now, the reported outcome is limited: the 30-unit project remains before the zoning board, with neighboring condominium residents’ objections to shared access unresolved.
