Featured Government Real Estate Transportation

Court Hears Arguments for Parking Rights at Commercial Wharf

Parking lot at Commercial Wharf, between the condo building and marina (NEWF photo)

Judge Linda Giles described the case as “important, complex” and even “fascinating” in a July 23rd hearing at Superior Court. Who knew a parking dispute could be so intriguing? But then, this involves Commercial Wharf, one of the most litigated properties in downtown Boston through a series of cases ongoing for more than 30 years. It also raises questions about the State’s Chapter 91 license requirements for properties, like Commercial Wharf, built over Commonwealth tidelands but developed under special legislative acts of the 1960s/1970s urban renewal program that granted broad power to the city’s Boston Redevelopment Authority.

In this latest chapter of the legal saga, oral arguments were heard over parking rights on the wharf property as part of cross-pleadings by attorneys representing Commercial Wharf East Condominium Association (CWECA) versus those from the State’s Attorney General’s office representing the regulatory arm at Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Another interested party, not directly named in this case, is the marina property, known as Yacht Haven (or Boston Boat in court documents). Other property owners on the wharf include the Sail Loft and most recently, Tavistock Corp., proprietor of Joe’s American Bar & Grill, and new owner of the burned out commercial properties that it intends to redevelop.

There are roughly two dozen parking spots at issue in this case, only a fraction of those on the property. CWECA, the condo association, controls most of the parking under the wharf’s master deed and the spaces are used primarily for residential unit owners of the large granite building at Commercial Wharf. The deed describes a daisy chain allocation for the condo, the marina and other owners at the property. Roughly a decade ago, the priority rights of the condo were challenged by Yacht Haven (Boston Boat) that was looking to expand at the time.

The Attorney General’s interest is arguing the State’s authority to issue and enforce Chapter 91 licenses, absent at Commercial Wharf. Built as part of the waterfront’s urban renewal, the condo association (CWECA) is relying on the 1964 (and subsequently 1974) Special Acts of the Massachusetts legislature that prompted the BRA’s redevelopment of the property and on which the existing deeds were created, including parking rights.

CWECA maintains the urban renewal legislation is “equivalent” to a modern Chapter 91 license. For the DEP, Asst. Attorney General Scholfield said that the special acts of the legislature only gave the BRA veto authority over DEP’s Chapter 91 licenses, not the ability to issue them.

The parking issue is running parallel to a related appeals case regarding a DEP ruling that could force conversion of two dozen residential units back to commercial use and potentially evict currently deeded residents. In an effort to preempt that, recently introduced legislation by State Rep. Aaron Michlewitz would effectively codify the urban renewal argument and provide the condo association with a grandfathered Ch. 91 license.

In June 2013, the State DEP said a new Chapter 91 license is necessary at Commercial Wharf. The DEP made a “positive” determination that “changes in use from commercial to residential in thirty-six (36) units subsequent to January 1, 1984″… “require a Departmental authorization in the form of a license”. (View PDF of the DEP Determination of Applicability) At the time, the ruling was a significant win for Boston Boat Basin, LLC, owners of Boston Yacht Haven marina, who brought the case with Fort Point Associates. The Commercial Wharf Condominium Association has argued in a letter against the licensing requirement because the DEP already reviewed the “commercial to residential” conversion issue in 2004 and previously made a determination.

Judge Giles acknowledged the overwhelming complexity of the case but gave little hint toward leaning one way or another in the courtroom filled with several observers. Notably, however, Giles has previously ruled in a separate issue that a Chapter 91 license was required “to protect the public’s rights” for the abutting Sail Loft building in a case involving the DeNormadie companies. After documents were introduced regarding past judgements on the property, the hearing ended with the judge taking the case under advisement.

It is not clear what would happen with the parking spots should the judge rule in favor of DEP. There was no mention of the unfinished Harborwalk at Commercial Wharf, a sticking point that also goes back decades between the various property owners.

View more coverage of Commercial Wharf.

It is our 10th Anniversary and we are celebrating a decade of community news at NorthEndWaterfront.com! Keeping this website going takes a lot of time, money and hard work. Advertising doesn’t bring in enough to pay for reporting or editorial work. But we do it because we believe community news is important – and we think you do too. If everyone who reads this site, who likes it, puts in a bit to pay for it, then our future would be much more secure. Contribute online at the links below or checks can be made out to North End Boston LLC, 343 Commercial St. #508, Boston 02109. Become a Patron to receive free rewards including neighborhood photo calendars, custom mugs and special updates from the editor.

7 Replies to “Court Hears Arguments for Parking Rights at Commercial Wharf

  1. I live nearby and walk past this everyday. It’s crazy that this battle is still going on. Meanwhile, you still can’t walk on a harborwalk. I think folks need to realize how fortunate they all are to be at such a great location. I mean there are million dollar condos, million dollar yachts, great views, great food! Geez folks, just make a deal build us a harborwalk and move on with your lives before it’s all flooded in a hurricane.

    1. Agree. Just yesterday, I was speaking with someone who lives on a boat in the marina. She told me all about the raccoons and rats that have taken up residence in the building now owned by Tavistock Corp. Chapter 91 is pretty clear about what should be done with “unsafe or hazardous structures“.

      Chapter 91 is pretty clear about a lot more than that too. I was disappointed to find out that there was “no mention of the unfinished Harborwalk” at the hearings.

      Commercial Wharf’s flagrant Chapter 91 violations/lack of a license altogether don’t only affect “various property owners”. They affects all of us. Taxpayers funded the cleanup of Boston Harbor under the knowledge that Chapter 91 grants all of us access to the benefits. Taxpayers did not fund the cleanup so that a few rich(*) condo owners – living in units illegally converted to residences – could see their property values increase even more.

      The fact that CWECA and one of our local legislators want to go a step further and officially forgive Commercial Wharf from their historic violations and exempt them from compliance in the future is just a slap in the face.

      (*) I say “rich” because of public record sales info and this quote: “some of these people payed a pretty penny for those units“.

  2. This project preceded Chapter 91. It reclaimed a derelict of the old waterfront. Much of that area which is now known as the Waterfront district were at one time either abandoned or dilapidated structures with lot of code problems. The City created these variances to make them attractive to buyers who wanted to take the risk. They have not always been million dollar assets.

    When I arrived in the North End, much of the property investment had gone bust. Seemed like everyone wanted to unload a North End condo. I was skeptical about buying and when I finally did, wondered whether would end up losing my shirt on the place. Within a few years there was a whole different picture. I am not affected by this whole thing, but have to wonder whether having a deed is really that relevant. The State makes a new law and then suddenly I am undeeded? If the City and State are sincere about improving the situation, they need to realize they made the mess and shouldn’t have to exact away deeded properties and create new deeds for the undeeded.

    It’s a pretty good guess that few to none of the current residents were original owners, but they bought the places as-is and paid a premium for deeded parking. Classifying them as rich is irrelevant, some I know there are simply well-to-do. Regardless, their income doesn’t make everyone else charity cases.

      1. Ah, buts that the rub. They do have an equivalent Ch 91 license from urban renewal legislation. Don’t be fooled by the DEP working on behalf of yacht haven which started this whole thing. And the latest plans for a harborwalk amount to a gentrified path to a new touristy development at those burned buildings. In the state’s eyes: more tourism and more mega yachts = public benefit. Be careful what you wish for.

  3. I understand where the condo owners are coming from. After all, they bought their homes in good faith, many a long time ago under a legal deed that is now being challenged by an aggressive set of business interests.. Fighting the marina has cost them plenty. I hope when a politically-motivated state agency comes after your family home that your neighbors won’t join in the lynching mob.

Comments are closed.