A new high-rise planned to mark the gate between the Fenway and the Back Bay has gained seven stories in height, putting it even further over the zoning limit.

The blueprint for 2 Charlesgate West, which already exceeded height limits, gained another 70 feet in documents filed on December 7. The project was already under fire for breaking zoning and a variety of other smaller issues, and local stakeholders are at a loss to explain how this change could be justified.

“The project as proposed is grossly oversized and there are already massive payoffs to organizations that will sit on the review body. It’s a straight up conflict of interest,” said Tim Horn, president of the Fenway Civic Association (FCA). “It will have a huge negative impact on the Back Bay Fens which will persist for the next century. Things will need repair and restoration for that entire time period.”

The zoning for the parcel is complex, subject to the special rules of the two “gateway parcels” in the West Fenway meant to mark the border between neighborhoods. The apparent limits of the parcel’s zoning are 135 feet of height and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 9 if the project undergoes Article 80 community review, which it currently is.

Even before the December changes, the project needed a zoning exception with its original height of 229 feet and FAR of 13.7. How developers plan to justify the current 295-foot height and 14.5 FAR is anyone’s guess.

The new filing also outlines plans to request relief for various design elements and bringing no new parking to the neighborhood. The original 2021 plans included 75 spaces that seem to have disappeared.

The project’s proponent SCAPE, a London-based real estate firm known for its work developing student housing, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

One likely argument in favor is the amount of desperately needed housing the project would bring. In a mayoral administration willing to buck tradition and make enemies if it means alleviating Boston’s crippling housing prices, 406 new compact units might be hard to turn down.

“I don’t have an explanation for the excessive height. Other than meeting the city’s call for housing and prior housing commitments for this set of developments, I can’t speak as to why they're asking for double the zoned height and FAR,” said Marie Fakuda, an FCA board member who serves on the project’s IAG as a private citizen.

It’s not clear if today’s zoning will even be relevant by the time the project breaks ground. Boston’s development process is being reevaluated at every level. This includes Article 80, which the project is using to bump up base limits on height and FAR, and zoning itself, under which the project is hoping to use both a specific exception and a passive parcel exception that might not exist when everything settles.

“I don't even know if anyone cares at city hall. We care as residents but if the zoning keeps changing with new initiatives that render everything moot, we can’t really speak to any precedent-setting at all,” said Fakuda. “We all know the current building isn’t serving the neighborhood well, but is it better to have something new with negative consequences?”

All of this is especially galling for community groups given it’s exactly what the Fenway’s zoning update last year was supposed to prevent. Abruptly ended when former City Councilor Kenzie Bok left her seat to lead the Boston Housing Authority, the process gave developers the right to build hundreds of feet above prior limits in some places to save residents the time of fighting each individual project. The 2 Charlesgate West parcel is seemingly not one of those properties, so stakeholders find themselves once again manning the barricades at the next project meeting on January 11.

“The rezoning that just gave more height in certain areas is already being ignored by the first proposal to come forward since,” said Horn. “The FCA didn’t support those changes, but hoped with more allowance we wouldn’t have to deal with continued one-off variances.”

The Fenway Community Development Corporation did not respond to requests to comment on this subject.