State regulators lifted limits on 24 acres of East Boston waterfront, potentially clearing the way for a large industrial development between Route 1A and Chelsea Creek. Photo by James Sanna | Banker & Tradesman Staff

A state ruling could open up a 23-acre portion of the East Boston waterfront to large-scale development, replacing parking lots and warehouses with new industrial buildings serving airport-related industries. 

Waterfront stakeholders including Conservation Law Foundation, Boston Harbor Now and Chelsea-based GreenRoots criticized the decision, arguing that it overstated access problems between properties and Chelsea Creek, while underselling the potential of the parcels to support emerging industries. 

“Industry is changing around us and other uses are coming into play,” said Alice Brown, chief of policy and planning at Boston Harbor Now, citing examples such as wind power and “blue tech” startups developing remote underwater vehicles. 

The arguments echo the recent debate over the future of the Mystic River waterfront in Everett, including a failed attempt by a state legislator to remove the Constellation Energy power plant property from a state-designated port area to allow potential non-maritime uses such as a professional soccer stadium. 

East Boston Gateway Waits in the Wings 

Unlike the Everett parcels, the Chelsea Creek decision underwent a 17-month regulatory review by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, and a public comment period. 

Developer Cargo Ventures, which owns a large portion of the Chelsea Creek waterfront, and neighboring landowners requested in 2021 that the state lift 44-year-old restrictions on development in the area. The parcels stretch from the Revere border to Chelsea Street and contain warehouses, trucking terminals and off-site parking for Logan International Airport. 

Cargo Ventures has presented plans for a large project known as East Boston Gateway, including a 538,561-square-foot, 2-story warehouse with rooftop parking at 230-370 McClellan Highway. 

In a submission to the CZM office, developers argued that the 1978 restrictions on non-marine projects don’t reflect the physical constraints of the properties or current real estate conditions. 

No ship-to-shore cargo operations have taken place on the site since the 1950s, developers said. Redevelopment of the properties for non-marine uses would include improved public access to the waterfront, which has been hampered by the existence of an abandoned freight rail branch. 

Cargo Ventures did not return messages for a comment on the state ruling. 

Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation had urged state officials to reject the changes, criticizing a seemingly arbitrary selection of parcels that will be removed from the designated port area. 

In a comment letter, CLF Vice President Deanna Moran also challenged arguments that the rail right-of-way effectively cuts off the properties from the waterfront, making them unsuitable for marine uses such as water-dependent clean energy and blue tech companies. 

Chelsea-based environmental group GreenRoots agreed that the rail right-of-way shouldn’t pose an insurmountable barrier to marine-related development, pointing to the existence of the Global Partners fuel terminal just over the Revere line. 

“That’s not hampered by the fact that there’s a rail right-of-way, and it’s pretty much the same geophysical setting,” said John Walkey, GreenRoots’ director of waterfront and climate justice initiatives. 

Steve Adams

Plans Rely on New Freight Corridor 

To lessen traffic impacts on Route 1A, the EB Gateway plans have included a proposal to convert the rail right-of-way into a two-lane freight corridor connecting to Logan. 

A 2019 attempt by Massachusetts Department of Transportation to offer developers easement rights for a 1.1-mile section of the right of way was delayed after objections from transit advocates.  

MassDOT formed a study to take a broader look at future transportation needs along the Route 1A corridor, which has met three times. The study is analyzing future demand for vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian uses and imminent projects in the area including the 16.5 millon-square-foot Suffolk Downs redevelopment, which has agreed to pay $61 million for off-site roadway and transit projects. 

An Oct. 3 meeting of the study committee was postponed and has not been rescheduled, according to MassDOT, which did not respond to an inquiry about the reason for the delay.