Graystone Development Runs into Some Problems

The concluded that the petition submitted by the developers of an under construction 50-unit condominium community, represented a substantial architectural change.

Duffy Realty must now work with the Planning Board to find a solution to an issue they believe is negatively impacting their ability to sell six of their condos along Cambridge Street.

“The design as originally proposed has been unmarketable,” said Mark Vaughan, the attorney representing Duffy Realty.  “People do not want a unit with a front door facing Cambridge.”

Vaughan went on to explain that they were getting “push back” from potential buyers about having a driveway at the back of the unit and the front door on the opposite side.

To address this issue Duffy Realty asked the ZBA to allow them to move the entranceway next to the garage and driveway. They proposed that the side facing Cambridge Street could then be used for the patios, which would be buffered from the road by extensive landscaping and a four-foot fence.

Drew Bottaro, the Chairman of the Planning Board, protested Duffy’s proposal.

“It was a fundamental part of the ACP (area comprehensive plan) that the streetscape be viewed as active,” he said.  “We could be looking at a canyon of cars. That it not be a walled off development is fundamental.”

For the Planning Board, the argument was one they faced when the Graystone project was originally approved. The initial design proposed by Duffy Realty had included the front door beside the driveway, but the board had stipulated that having it face Cambridge Street was essential.

Now that construction has been underway for nearly a year, Duffy has returned to fight the same battle.

“What they would like to see turns out to not be a marketable solution,” Vaughan said.

Board of Appeals Member Donna Patalano asked if a potential solution might be to develop a faux door facing Cambridge.

“It might accomplish what we’re looking for,” Bottaro said.  “I don’t think the Planning Board is concerned with how people drive in.”

Kevin Duffy though was unenthusiastic about the idea. He claimed that a “door to nowhere” would adversely affect the interior of the units.

Chairman Rich Sampson asked the developers if they had considered any alternatives. But no additional suggestions were given.

This left Duffy Realty in a difficult position before the board, which found that the changes presented were architecturally substantial.

“My feeling is that this development was approved by what the Planning Board outlined,” ZBA member Nigel Gallagher said. “This will look like the back of the property instead of the front.”

Board member Al Sreter agreed.

“It’s tough to get around the issue of substantial,” he said.

Rich Sampson said that he was “troubled” by the changes. He then led the board in its decision to continue the hearing until April 26.

During the next two months Duffy Realty must develop a solution that will meet the Planning Board’s criteria.