111 Terrace St. still under review

September 7, 2018
By

After an extended comment period, the community and city agencies are still deciding how they want to proceed with the proposed new building at 111 Terrace St.

Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) extended the comment period through Aug. 31 to allow the public additional time to submit comments. The Community Alliance of Mission Hill (CAMH) decided to delay its vote on the project until their September meeting to allow the developers to come back with answers to some of the group’s questions.

According to Michael Ross, the attorney representing the developers proposing 111 Terrace St., the developers are continuing to work with the Mission Hill community, the nonprofit Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services, and abutters, to resolve issues as they arise.

“The project continues to evolve as a result of the comments that have been received so far,” said Ross.

The 111 Terrace St. project is proposed as being a new five-story development in Mission Hill and has been under review by BPDA since developers Mark Blotner and Mark Cabral submitted their small project review application on June 8.

The property currently consists of 11,889 square feet of land, and consists of a three-story residential apartment of 2,732 square feet and is otherwise paved and utilized as a parking and tow lot area. The developers are proposing a new five-story, 42-unit residential building, consisting of approximately 31,862 square feet, 21 parking spaces, and 48 bike parking spaces. The building will have a mix of unit sizes, including 12 studios, 25 one-bedrooms, and 4 two-bedrooms. Some units will have access to private roof terraces or balconies on the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors. Five of these will be affordable units, including one artist live/work space.

There was a community meeting regarding the project at the Tobin Community Center on July 19. According to Bonnie McGilpin, director of Communications at BPDA, the meeting was lightly attended by about five to ten people and there was no strong opinion either opposing or supporting the development. She reported that attendees had a number of questions and suggestions, including storm-water and ground water retention/recharge systems; a desire to see home ownership opportunities; no undergraduate student housing; no short-term rentals; general comments on the building design, including ground level of the building and how it interacts with the public realm; and interest on how wide the new sidewalks would be.