1.5 min readBy Published On: April 11th, 2017Categories: News33 Comments on Development News: The House at M and Marine

On Monday night, a crowd of nearly 100 residents met at the corner of M and Marine to learn more about the proposal of a single family to be converted into multiple units.  The Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services, along with the developer hosted a meeting to discuss “a conditional use permit for Greenbelt Protection approval.”  The developer wishes to tear down the single family – a roughly 1770 square foot structure and build on the 5 units and 7 parking spots on the 4,467 square foot lot.  The house is located at 202 M Street. 

Needless to say, the neighbors in attendance at this abutters meeting were not pleased at all.  Concerns from traffic, to size of proposed building, to altering the integrity of the neighborhood were passionately expressed by attendees.  A similar proposed development was also brought up  – at the corner of L and Columbia (the white house with a fenced in yard).  That piece of property is proposed for 16 units covering the entire lot.

In attendance was City Councilor at-Large Michael Flaherty- who lives a block from the home in questions – is leading the charge against the development of the property.  “South Boston is already over developed as it is. There’s not enough parking and people cannot even get a seat on the bus to work in the morning, enough is enough! The community came out in big numbers tonight. It was clear they are fed up with greedy developers coming in an exploiting every square inch of this town,” said Flaherty.  

This real estate proposal will be discussed on Tuesday at 6:30pm at the City Point Neighborhood Association monthly meeting at St. Brigid Church basement.  It will then go before the Boston Planning and Development Agency in May.

image via Zillow


  1. Typical Millenial April 11, 2017 at 2:53 pm - Reply

    The issue is supply and demand. If everyone wants to say “NIMBY!” and stop supply…then prices are going to stay high and out of reach for most people who would like to own rather than write a check down the drain every month. People complain about “maintaining the integrity” and the same people complain about prices/rents being too high…pick one!

    • Sick in Southie April 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm - Reply

      FYI the owners of this property listed it for sale in October for $1.9 million, a totally unrealistic and astronomical price for that property, and would not budge off that price which made it virtually impossible for anyone actually wanting to live in that one family in that neighborhood to purchase. They abruptly took it off the market in mid December. They claimed they were putting it back on the market in the spring but voila it is reincarnated as a demo job for a 5 unit condo 40 feet high and running the entire width of the lot virtually blocking out sunlight and air for the people directly next door and causing an eyesore and increased congestion for the rest of the neighborhood. They entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the developer for $1.9 Million contingent upon them pulling off this abomination. So in effect they are having their cake and eating it too, having Mahoney and the developer shill for them while they sit back anonymously like innocent little lambs waiting for their big pay day. Three cheers for integrity!

      • Accurate Tom April 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm - Reply

        Get your facts straight! The house did go on the market for 1.9 million but was reduced to 1,699,000.00 one month later where it remained. Check zillow history! House was not sold to developer for 1.9 million as you suggest in your paragraph of inaccuracies. But no sense letting the facts get in the way of your fictional account of what transpired.

    • peter April 12, 2017 at 6:41 pm - Reply

      who is the developer for this proposal?

      • Ed April 13, 2017 at 3:31 pm - Reply

        Developers; Colin Watters and Ray Hurteau – Lawyer is Patrick Mahoney

        Looks like they’re all doing quite well judging from their FB pictures

  2. Not-so-typical Millenial April 11, 2017 at 3:35 pm - Reply

    Are you kidding me “Typical Millenial”?? We are drowning in over-development. Every square inch of this community has been built. Smaller homes that fit in with the historic design of the community are now being destroyed for large, ugly developments that stack people upon people. Public transportation can’t even accommodate the numbers of people that have been crammed into the neighborhood. Parking wars are breaking out over very limited street spaces. The quality of life here has diminished greatly since the gold rush started. The time to put the brakes on this was years ago but this home will be the last straw for many. I can all but guarantee you that it’s not going to happen. I love our mayor Marty Walsh but if he allow this to house to be torn down, he will lose tremendous support in this neighborhood.

    • Typical Mellinial April 12, 2017 at 8:51 pm - Reply

      Public transportation can’t accommodate because $0.20 of every dollar goes to filling the MBTA pension gap that you dinosaurs rely on. Every new development that doesn’t receive a variance on parking actually reduces the amount of cars on the street. Myself, being a “yuppie” believes this is actually one of the most desirable Boston neighborhoods to live in at the moment. If you don’t like congestion move to the ‘burbs and bank the sale of your house while prices are still inflated DUE TO LACK OF SUPPLY AND HIGH DEMAND.

  3. Nancy C April 11, 2017 at 4:59 pm - Reply

    The are nothing but greedy developers who want to ruin our homes and put up some ugly condos, The don’t fit in to our neighborhood which is very historical to us.. If they want to do develop try another town Why Southie???? We always get the short end of the stick. There are a lot of places in Boston that they could do with some new development… Just leave us alone you have ruined our neighborhood..

  4. Ed April 11, 2017 at 8:55 pm - Reply

    Time to start naming names and calling individuals out. They hide behind this nameless, faceless “developer” title and often times they live around the corner. If they are going to keep jamming people into an already overpopulated area making life more difficult for residents already here all for their own personal gain—we need to make them do it in the light of day. That way we will know who they are when we see them in the coffee shops and restaurants. Time to make it personal for them because it is for us. #goingtothemattresses

  5. B. Ryler April 12, 2017 at 1:02 am - Reply

    I agree with Ed…call the faceless “developers” out and the politicians they pay off. The only reason Flaherty is offering support to the neighbors of this property is because he is one.
    I went to the Zoning Board meetings in the past to voice my opposition to a property that abuts my home and wanted to add a floor to increase living space when converting a 2 family to ” luxury condos”.
    The only political office that spoke on behalf of myself and my neighbors and went on record in support of the neighbors over the developers was Mayor Walsh’s office. Flaherty and Linehan’s reps sat in the room and would not comment during our time to speak to the Board. When Nick Collins’ office was contacted for neighborhood support we were told that his office” does not get involved in these issues”. Really!?!

    Beware of the politicians that claim to have your back. Walsh will continue to get my vote, it’s a relief that Linehan is not seeking reelection, Flaherty and Collins will NEVER get my vote…they are no friends to Southie unless their is something in it for them personally.

  6. Joan April 12, 2017 at 1:08 am - Reply

    What a disgrace. Greedy developers strike again. Shame on the owner too!Where are all those Southie politicians!
    I grew up across the street and spent lots of time in this wonderful house. What ever happened to the idea of neighborhood and people looking out for each other! Greed is indeed a scary thing!

  7. Ellie Kasper April 12, 2017 at 1:32 am - Reply

    Welcome to my world people. We have the “developers” and the shills that work for them well as the previous administration in the City of Boston to thank for this great divide in our community. The West Side just wasn’t enough for them. And I quote, “I do very, very well”. A Real Estate Agent.

    • Helen April 29, 2017 at 9:53 pm - Reply

      Totally agree with you Ellie and well said. The Realtors have systematically ruined Southie House by House, Street by Street. They are the Ones that tell the Sellers what to price their Homes. There have always been Realtors in Southie but they came from South Boston and lived here. and valued the Neighborhood. I think the worse ones are the Ones not from South Boston never raised here with zero Family Roots. I have to laugh when I see them attend different Charity Events or Political Fundraisers for everyone knows they are their to “make more money.”

    • Lisa Connor December 30, 2021 at 6:21 pm - Reply

      Hi Ellie,
      I have been trying to find you to get in touch and check in to see how Eileen CM is doing. I hope you get this message!

      Call me at 617-688-2941
      Lisa Connor from JP and formerly BECO. Xo

  8. Bryan April 12, 2017 at 1:44 am - Reply

    Same thing is happening at 35 & 37 farragut road. They want to tear down the 2 family at 37 and build 8 units. Hopefully the city will listen to the neighborhood and scale back these development plans.

    • Mike April 13, 2017 at 12:50 am - Reply

      37 Farragut has an abutters meeting on 4/19 at 6pm. I hope the neighborhood turns out and shows the developers we don’t want large scale development like this.

      • Nick Brown April 13, 2017 at 4:10 pm - Reply

        I don’t think the neighborhood is completely against development. At least I’m not. Building on empty lots and renovating (or even demolishing) dilapidated buildings is a positive contribution to the neighborhood, even if it leads to additional traffic, crowded buses, and less parking. In most instances, I think this type of development improves existing conditions.

        Demolishing perfectly nice single- and two-family homes to build multi-unit condo buildings is another matter entirely. This type of development is not respectful of the existing community and does not improve existing conditions. It simply encourages an environment or attitude where squeezing every last dollar out of a property is more important than preserving the intangible aspects of the neighborhood that people originally found desirable and led to today’s property value’s.

        All of this is to say that development in Southie isn’t inherently bad, but more consideration should be required to be given to a property’s prior use when determining how it will be used in the future. If the developers of 202 M Street wanted to construct a 2 or 3 unit building on the property, I’m guessing there would still be opposition, but it would be much more muted because the proposed development would be consistent with how neighboring properties are currently used.

        • Liz April 14, 2017 at 4:33 pm - Reply

          Totally agree – its about development which considers the current state of the neighborhood. This one seems way out of scale/

  9. Jean D April 12, 2017 at 11:31 am - Reply

    Same developer is doing a tear down on Savin Hill – 75 Sydney Street. Certainly not as a majastoc home as M Street – this is abandoned & abuts the T tracks. However- similar in the way that he is cramming to much onto the parcel and ones parking skills would liken origami.
    Col/Savin Hill Civic has sent him back to the drafting table three times …..

  10. Greg Murphy April 12, 2017 at 12:00 pm - Reply

    STOP BLAMING THE DEVERLOPERS!!!! Blame city hall . The developer are only getting away with this because the city is letting them. Have any of you heard of Boston 2030?


    Walsh wants these units built. He want 50,000 more people living in Boston in the next 22 years. Where do you think they are going? Right here in our neighborhoods. This is going on all over the city, not just in Southie.

    Time for everyone to wake up and see the bigger picture at play here. It is pointless to fight all of these developments on a case by case basis. Fight the Boston 2030 plan. Maybe CIS can follow up on this plan.

  11. Old time southie April 12, 2017 at 12:02 pm - Reply

    The REAL PROBLEM here is that a developer THINKS he/she can buy a single family house or a small lot of land and JAM as many condos/apartments on the property BEFORE they buy the property. Because they have been getting away with these practices . In my opinion this house on “M” street MUST BE STOPPED PERIOD. This will send a message to any new developers/investors to THINK BEFORE YOU BUY. I am not against fixing up old run down houses and rehabbing or building nice new houses/condos. EXAMPLE: Gate of heaven condo conversions, many town houses down the west side to name a few. Simply put, fix up and build, but keep the integrity of the neighborhood..

    • Andy L April 12, 2017 at 5:48 pm - Reply

      The homeowner is going to make a fortune by selling his single family house to the developers. But his neighbors won’t let him. Sounds like the elitists from Cambridge and JP have invaded traditional Southie and are forcing hard working people to accept their liberal values. What happened to the Reagan Democrats that used to be my neighbors? The folks that voted for Scott Brown? Using regulation to stop developers is just big government on the local level. Big government kills jobs and lowers property values for everyone. Wake up and don’t fall for the liberal nonsense from Cambridge and JP.

  12. Eleanor April 12, 2017 at 12:23 pm - Reply

    The lawyer for these guys (Patrick Mahoney) just bought 823 E Broadway himself and (rumor has it) wants to build what amounts to another structure 4 stories high in the backyard all the way to the property line. This will amount to the neighbors having a giant brick wall and peope’s windows to look at instead of the sky and sunlight which they have had for decades. Something has got to give–this guy is running rampant on this neighborhood!!

  13. Mary Ellen Schuster April 12, 2017 at 2:39 pm - Reply

    The same thing is happening here in JP. Developers tearing down traditional homes and putting up tiny, ugly boxes. JP is becoming just as dense and congested as Southie. Greedy developers are negatively impacting and changing the character of every neighborhood in the city. Mayor Walsh is definitely on the side of the developers. Wait until they zero in on Taft Street!

  14. Sb April 12, 2017 at 11:19 pm - Reply

    Aren’t there 2 3 story apt buildings across the st from this house?

    • Ed April 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm - Reply

      Exactly……….it’s already way too overcrowded

    • SB17 April 13, 2017 at 4:17 pm - Reply

      But that blows the “it ruins the character of the neighborhood” argument out of the water, no?

  15. Chuck on N St. April 13, 2017 at 5:24 pm - Reply

    Please join me in contacting our elected representatives to let them know this is an important issue for our neighborhood. They won’t care about these issues unless they know we do.

    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    Let them know you are a constituent that votes in every election and you need their help in fighting this terrible over-development of the neighborhood we love!

  16. BL April 13, 2017 at 9:12 pm - Reply

    The GPOD regulations apply when a landowner seeking a building permit for a proposed construction project within the GPOD “seeks to erect one or more buildings or structures having a total gross floor area in excess of five thousand (5,000) square feet.” Article 29-4 of the code, as amended through November 24, 1987. KCI concedes that it is subject to the GPOD regulations.
    itional use permit applications to construct within a GPOD are determined by the board.
    • “The board of appeal shall grant any such appeal [i.e., an application for a conditional use permit] only if it finds that all of the following conditions are met:
    “(a) the specific site is an appropriate location for such use or, in the case of a substitute nonconforming use under Section 9-2, such substitute nonconforming use will not be more objectionable nor more detrimental to the neighborhood than the nonconforming use for which it is being substituted;
    “(b) the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood;
    “(c) there will be no serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians from the use;
    “(d) no nuisance will be created by the use;
    “(e) adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the use;
    “(f) if such appeal relates to a Development Impact Project as defined in Section 80B-7, the applicant shall have complied with the Development Impact Exaction requirements set forth in section 80B-7.3; and
    “(g) if such appeal relates to a Proposed Project in an area designated a Greenbelt Protection Overlay District as defined in Section 29-2, the Applicant shall have complied with the requirements set forth in Section 29-3 and Section 29-5 and the standards set forth in Section 29-6.”

  17. BL April 13, 2017 at 9:13 pm - Reply

    • Section 29-5. – Specific Requirements.
    The specific requirements of this Section 29-5 shall apply to any Proposed Project included under Section 29-4 within a Greenbelt Protection Overlay District:
    The Applicant shall submit to the Boston Redevelopment Authority evidence of having submitted its plans to the city of Boston Parks Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to the meeting held by the Boston Redevelopment Authority on the Applicant’s request for a conditional use permit or a report by the Parks Commission indicating whether it recommends project approval, denial, or modification. Design submissions to the Boston Redevelopment Authority shall be required in accordance with the development and design review procedures of the Authority, as they may be revised from time to time. See Article 80 concerning Large Project Review and Small Project Review requirements for Proposed Projects in Greenbelt Protection Overlay Districts.
    • Section 29-6. – Standards.
    To obtain a conditional use permit the Applicant shall show that the Proposed Project complies with the following standards in addition to the standards set forth in Article 6:
    provision for adequate vehicular access, off-street parking and loading and shall not have a significant adverse effect on traffic and parking on the Greenbelt Roadway and adjacent streets;
    provision for landscaping treatment that ensures that the natural and aesthetic quality of the Greenbelt Roadway area will be maintained;
    provision for the design of all structures that is compatible with surrounding neighborhood.

  18. BL April 13, 2017 at 9:14 pm - Reply

    • Section 68-28. – Design Review and Design Guidelines.
    Applicability of Design Review . To ensure that growth in the South Boston Neighborhood District is compatible with the character of the buildings and urban design features of the neighborhood, design review is required for certain Proposed Projects through Large Project Review (Urban Design Component) or Small Project Review (Design Component), pursuant to Article 80 of this Code.
    To determine whether a Proposed Project is subject to Large Project Review, see Section 80B-2 (Applicability of Large Project Review).
    To determine whether a Proposed Project is subject to Small Project Review, see Section 80E-2.1 (Applicability of Small Project Review: Design Component) and this Section 68-28.1.
    Design Guidelines . This Section 68-28.2 establishes the following design guidelines for the South Boston Neighborhood District.
    Site Plan .
    Site planning, including location of buildings, open space, and bicycle and vehicular access and parking areas, should be designed to enhance the street frontage and surrounding building and spaces.
    Vehicular access and egress to and from a site should minimize traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways and provide safe visual access for drivers and pedestrians.
    Parking, storage, and disposal areas, and the entrance to accessory parking within a main Building, should not be located in the front of Buildings, unless there are special circumstances, such as existing Building locations or site conditions that make it necessary. Wherever practicable, such areas should be located behind Buildings. Parking, storage, and disposal areas should be adequately screened from public view by suitable fencing and vegetation.
    For industrial Buildings, siting and design of new construction and rehabilitation of existing Buildings should be compatible with pedestrian activity. Where the provision of windows in the Street Wall is impracticable, articulation of the Street Wall by other means is encouraged. Where a Front Yard is required between the sidewalk edge and the Street Wall, such Front Yard should include an adequate landscaped buffer.

  19. TruthTeller April 15, 2017 at 2:00 pm - Reply

    City Point needs a Powerful Neighborhood association to stop development like M & Marine.
    Then and only then will elected officials respond. The City Point association is a joke run by a self serving, self important oaf. She opposes real Southie people’s projects due to petty jealousy. She has no respect from the “electeds” therefore when a real problem like M street arises she’s ignored because she’s burned too many bridges. Case in point, M & Emerson Street. A three family was torn down and replaced by a monstrous apartment building taking up every square inch of the lot. Did the City Point Assoc. stop that Milton developer? Nope, thus the precedent was set past L Street leading to the M & Marine debacle. City Point needs a respected Neighbordood Association run by an honest leader with impeccable credibility. Time to wake up!

  20. Greg Murphy April 18, 2017 at 3:30 pm - Reply

    Its seems we have one politician, Mike Flaherty, who can’t seem to get his story straight. In a Jan. 6th story he was quoted as saying:
    “The rezoning of South Boston is designed to restore predictability to the process so that the rules are understood and fairly applied to all,” said City Councilor Michael F. Flaherty of South Boston, who pushed for the new regulations. “Our hope is to eliminate the need for variances, the guessing game, and the hocus pocus that plays out at the Zoning Board of Appeals.”

    Now today in the Herald he says:
    “Otherwise, it’s only a matter of time before virtually every other single- or two-family home from the Lower End to City Point will disappear and be replaced by multifamily condo buildings and complexes,”

    Which one is it Mike, are you now against the very zoning that you were all for back in January?

Leave A Comment