A proposed development is circumventing a city ordinance to protect parks from excess shadow. Fenway residents are upset that the city is doing nothing about it.

At a community meeting at the Fenway Community Center on Monday, residents gathered to talk about the impact of shadow on parks. City officials and nonprofit researchers gave presentations about how buildings’ shadows can negatively affect park health. The overarching concern, however, was a new development at 2 Charlesgate West.

“There’s been a few developments that we’ve been talking about which we feel could be threats to open space,” Kathy McBride, the vice president of the Fenway Civic Association (FCA), said in a presentation. “Most recently, the 2 Charlesgate West project. This brings us to the crux of why we’re here.”

Charlesgate is a 300-foot-tall housing complex with 68 affordable units and access both to Ipswich Street and the Back Bay Fens. Because of its location, Charlesgate would be subject to a city ordinance that restricts the height of buildings within 100 feet of a park to a maximum of 70 feet. The building’s zoning restrictions also require a maximum height of 135 feet.

However, the city approved the project after Charlesgate’s developer subdivided the building into two lots with one facing Ipswich Street and the other facing the Fens. The latter meets the 70-foot height restriction, though the former would still cast shadow onto the park.

Fenway residents and the Boston Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) argue that, since both lots are connected, Charlesgate’s subdivision should not allow the rest of the building to be exempt from the ordinance height restriction.

“The rationale for the subdivision is unclear beyond an intent to exempt a portion of the massing from the 70’ height restriction,” a BPRD letter to the Planning Department, which was shared at the community meeting, reads. “Two Charlesgate West is designed and functions as a single building across two lots. The entire building is therefore subject to the 70’ height restriction.”

Numerous residents at the meeting expressed frustration with the Planning Department for approving the Charlesgate project, despite violating the city ordinance intended to protect the Fens and the zoning restrictions on tall developments.

Others were concerned that the subdivision plan could set a precedent for other developers.

In response to a question on why the department had approved Charlesgate, Seth Riseman, the Planning Department deputy director for design review, said that developers were allowed to seek exemptions from zoning restrictions, and that the department was evaluating the impacts of allowing this.

One resident said in response to Riseman, “As far as I’m concerned, most of this stuff is just double talk for letting these people slide through on this. ‘This is not going to be a precedent.’ Nonsense. You’re letting these guys build twice as much as they ought to be able to, and it’s awful.”

City Councilor Sharon Durkan, who represents the Fenway, has proposed an amendment to the ordinance to prevent other developers from using the same subdivision loophole.

“We’re creating precedent that anyone who needs an exemption from the Park and Parkways Ordinance should not do so through a subdivision,” Durkan said. “They should do so through seeking an amendment to the ordinance.”

Residents, however, are not convinced.

Many said they worried that other councilors might propose similar amendments in the future. Durkan’s amendment will have a hearing for public comment in mid-October.