"Santa lives at the north pole, not in the North End" - Neighborhood Council defers vote on Cross St development at 9pm

At 9pm, the Neighborhood Council President called on board members to Support, Oppose, or Defer Discussion on Frank Depasquale's development at 60-70 Cross Street. The Council voted to defer.

The Development

Frank Depasquale Ventures has applied for zoning relief to develop the old Martignetti's liquore store location on Cross Street. The plan calls for a mixed use development which would include a cafe with 3rd-floor rooftop seating, a culinary school, and several 1st and 2nd floor retail spaces - but no new housing units.

For tenants, Mr. Depasquale would like to bring in high end clothing, jewelry, shoe, and furniture stores as well as a travel agent. This is in contrast to a 2017 proposal that would have seen a Starbucks and Gap which saw strong opposition, including from Mr. Depasquale ("It sickens me") on the basis that it wasn't fitting and would hurt other North End businesses. He said he has specific purveyors in mind, but that they might pull out if the project doesn't move forward soon.

Mr. Depasquale spoke passionately about the project. He shared that he felt he overpaid for the property, and that his relatives advised him against it. And that he probably wouldn't see a profit on it in his lifetime. But that he was so passionate about and invested in the North End, that he couldn't pass it up.

Interestingly, there was no opposition to the design of the building. Before Starbucks put the nail in Charter Realty's 2017 coffin, the neighborhood objected to the design of their proposal which is strikingly similar to Depasquale's. Charter Realty's proposal complied with the parcel's zoning restrictions and wouldn't have required a variance like Depasquale's does. The 2016 design was considered so objectionable that the Boston Landmarks Commission invoked a demolition delay and requested that Charter Realty consider a design more "sensitive" to the North End location in 2016.

Cross St proposal 2016 (left) and 2024 (right). The 2016 design was vigorously opposed and panned as "not having a relationship to the to the flavor of the North End" looking like it belonged on Newbury st.

Abutters

Abutters that are behind the development expressed concerns including some 16 windows which would be blocked by a brick wall a few feet away. Other issues with egress and noise were also raised.

Windows that would be blocked by the development

57-59 Salem

The condo association at 57-59 Salem Street stated that they supported the development, but had concerns. Specifically:

• Egress
  There is an existing easement for 60-70 Cross Street to provide egress for 57-59 Salem. The details of how exactly this will be provided are unclear. Mr Depasquale's attorneys explained that they are obligated to (and will) provide egress and that they were confident they can go above and beyond the current accommodation.
• Views, light, and airflow
  At least six windows would be completely blocked by a brick wall a few feet away. And possibly at least part of two additional windows. Mr. Despasquale stated that he'd be willing to purchase the units affected and rent them out to students at his concept culinary school which is part of this development.
• Noise
  The association wondered whether music would be played and, if so, what type and had general concerns about noise from the proposed roof deck. Both parties indicated that they felt this could be worked out.

206 Hanover

The owners of the building at 206 Hanover (Romano Florist building) which, similar to 57-59 Salem, would have ten windows blocked by a brick wall a few feet away spoke next. The conversation turned contentious. Mr. Romano stated that "Santa lives at the North Pole, not in the North End", presumably in response to Mr. Depasquale's altruistic tone when describing the project.

Vote

At this point it was 9pm and tempers were flaring. Council President, Kevin Fleming called for a vote in which board members could vote to Support or Oppose the project, or to defer pending further discussion.

The vote was 3 Defer, 2 Support.