Urban planning community | #theplannerlife

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Boston neighborhood zoning dispute (was: All that's wrong ....)

  1. #1
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,580

    Boston neighborhood zoning dispute (was: All that's wrong ....)

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...n_zoning_bind/

    http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/G...76901_4701.jpg

    Moderator note:
    (Dan) Deleted hotlink to leeched image above. User was suspended for this post.


    Some neighbors on Melville Avenue in Dorchester are upset over the recent construction of a house (L) because the size of the lot fails to meet zoning standards. (Globe Staff Photo / Suzanne Kreiter)

    Top city officials aid family in zoning bind
    By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | April 28, 2005

    A politically connected Dorchester family is getting help from the highest levels of City Hall to save a newly constructed house that two courts have ordered destroyed because it violates Boston's zoning code.

    Though Suffolk Superior Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court have sided with angry neighbors and ordered removal of the house built by Jackie and Anthony O'Flaherty, officials including Boston Redevelopment Authority director Mark Maloney and Mayor Thomas M. Menino have intervened on the family's behalf.

    The BRA asked a high-powered Boston zoning lawyer to represent the family. The lawyer, Martin R. Healy of Goodwin Procter, is chairman of the firm's real estate development and permitting practice and is listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2005-2006, according to his resume. He is working for the family for free.

    Menino recently ''made clear his commitment to resolving" the matter, according to a March 30 e-mail by a BRA lawyer, and the BRA is now trying to amend the zoning code so that the house would no longer violate the rules. This week Maloney contacted a lawyer representing the neighbors in an effort to broker a compromise with neighbors.

    The O'Flahertys are a longtime Boston family, with several generations living in Dorchester since the 1920s. Jackie O'Flaherty's aunt is Susan Tracy, a popular former state representative who worked for the administration of former mayor Raymond L. Flynn and currently sits on a committee of women supporting Menino's reelection bid. Tracy is friendly with several of Menino's top aides and has been active in the family's efforts to save the house.

    Menino and other city officials said they are trying to correct an injustice and not doing anything for the O'Flahertys that they wouldn't do for others.

    ''This is a working family that made a mistake, and if someone wants them to tear down the house, it's totally wrong," said Menino, adding that he hadn't met the O'Flahertys until recently. ''These are hard-working people who thought they were doing the right thing. They got bad advice, so they turned to government. We're trying to be helpful."

    Controversy over the 2,000-square-foot house on Melville Avenue began even before it was built in 2001 because some neighbors didn't want another house built on the lot. The lot didn't meet the zoning code's requirement for 50 feet of frontage on a public street. The O'Flahertys went to the city's Zoning Board of Appeal for permission to build. At the time, the O'Flaherty's were living in a two-family house on the property.

    Several neighbors turned out to object, but, they said, weren't allowed to speak. Construction of a new house would result in three structures on the lot, including the two-family house and a barn at the rear. But the total number of buildings was not an issue before the Zoning Board.

    The Zoning Board issued the variance, and two weeks later the neighbors sued, arguing that squeezing the house onto a lot with such small frontage meant that the new building would block their view and access to light and air. They also argued that the house would increase traffic and congestion in the neighborhood.

    A Suffolk Superior Court judge refused to issue an injunction to stop construction, but warned the family that they ''proceeded with the construction at their own peril." The family's lawyer assured the judge that if the family lost the case they would tear down the house.

    They built the house, now valued by city assessors at $407,400, and moved in 2002. The following year, Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders ruled against them, ordering the Zoning Board to deny the variance and take ''all action necessary against the O'Flahertys to enforce the provisions of the code, including an order that they remove" the house.

    In January, the state Appeals Court upheld Sanders's decision.

    ''This happened because of the process," said Yvonne Ruggles, one of the neighbors who sued. ''It was our understanding that as abutters we had the right to question the development. But when we went to the Zoning Board they didn't ask for the abutters. The lot was too small."

    The battle over the house has galvanized the community, and hundreds of people turned out Monday night to speak for or against the city's proposed solution to the problem: changing the zoning code to circumvent the court decisions by ensuring that the lot complies with zoning rules.

    Some residents worried that the amendment, which will make it easier for property owners to build without first going to the Zoning Board of Appeal for special approvals on lots that have smaller frontage, would have broad implications for neighborhoods across the city. They said it could make it easier for builders to squeeze projects onto tiny lots.

    Under the proposed change, a property owner could be issued a building permit for a lot without having to go before the Zoning Board of Appeal as long as the frontage on a lot is at least 75 percent of the frontage specified in the zoning code.

    Some Boston neighborhoods already have exceptions that allow building on properties that are 75 percent of the square footage spelled out in the zoning code and 75 percent of the width. But lots must still meet frontage requirements. The O'Flahertys' lot is just over 45 feet at the street, less than 5 feet shorter than currently required.

    City officials said that they are not looking to change the zoning code simply to benefit the O'Flahertys, but that the family's ordeal has brought to light a problem in the code that needs ''clarifying." The city plans meetings in the affected neighborhoods before moving forward with passage of the zoning change.

    Councilor at Large Maura Hennigan, who is running for mayor, said she has never seen the city bureaucracy organize so publicly on behalf of a single family.

    ''I've never seen such a blatant example of putting a personal relationship ahead of what should be an objective process," said Hennigan, who opposes the zoning code change. ''We can't have a city that sets its laws based on personal interests and friends."

    Some Dorchester residents also said there is another dimension to the battle, reflecting tensions between lifelong working-class residents like the O'Flahertys and newcomers trying to curb development in a modest city block. Some testified on behalf of the O'Flahertys, saying that residents need to bridge that divide.

    ''Neighbors help each other and care about each other," Carolyn Kain, a neighborhood resident, said at Monday night's meeting.

    The O'Flahertys say their lives have been made miserable by the controversy and fear a wrecking ball will demolish their home.

    ''We just wanted to have enough room for our family," said Jackie O'Flaherty. ''Our kids were sharing a bedroom, and we needed more space. It was always our dream to build on the lot.

    ''This has destroyed my family," she said. ''My 10-year-old daughter is crying over this all the time. It started off they wanted the power in the neighborhoods and it turned into an angry mob that would do anything and everything to hurt us. I can't fathom why they've taken it to the extremes they've taken it."

  2. #2
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    10,515
    This is an interesting situation.

    I think that the neighbors may have been over-reacting. From the picture jmello posted, it doesn't seem out of place or detrimental to the surrounding, but I may be missing something.

    jmello, have you been to this particular site? What are your thoughts?
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Every day is today. Yesterday is a myth and tomorrow an illusion.

  3. #3
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    6,213
    The first thing that pops in my mind is that if the neighbors didn't want anything built on the lot, they should have BOUGHT it!!!

    This lot would have qualified as nonconforming under our statutes for lots platted prior to xx date.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,074
    It is common to find ordinances that allow exceptions to build on previously-platted lots. If that were not the case, infill development would be impossible in many places. From the perspective of the redevelopment authority, this is a very critical issue and it is only right that they should be involved.
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

  5. #5
    Strangely enough, it is impossible to build anything in Boston other than a single family house on a quarter acre lot without a zoning varience. When the current code was adopted (in the 1950s?) the powers that be must have had a bad case of suburbs envy. Almost every building in the city is non-conforming and either grandfathered in or was built only because of a varience. In many neigborhoods, the new buildings stand out, not because they are McMansions and too large, but because they are smaller and less dense.

    I do love this city.

  6. #6
    Cyburbian SGB's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve
    Posts
    3,387
    What was the basis of the court rulings?

    Procedural due process (not letting abutters speak at the Zoning Board hearing)?

    Substantive due process (# of structures allowed by code on the lot)?

    Or both?
    All these years the people said he’s actin’ like a kid.
    He did not know he could not fly, so he did.
    - - Guy Clark, "The Cape"

  7. #7
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman
    jmello, have you been to this particular site? What are your thoughts?
    I have been on the street quite a few times, but I have not looked specifically at this house. I can tell you that this is a very wealthy part of Dorchester, which is a relatively poor and working-class neighborhood. Most of the surrounding houses are similar to those two pictured, but many are likely bigger Victorians. I will try to swing by next week sometime.

    Quote Originally posted by SGB
    What was the basis of the court rulings?
    The thresholds for the variance were not met.

    Quote Originally posted by SGB
    Procedural due process (not letting abutters speak at the Zoning Board hearing)?
    That's what they say.

    Quote Originally posted by SGB
    Substantive due process (# of structures allowed by code on the lot)?
    The way the article is written, it appears that the number of structures is not relevant. They may have subdivided the property, who knows?
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 08 Jul 2005 at 9:43 AM.

  8. #8

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Sadly, this illustrates that ablarc does have a point sometimes. Only here, of course, its not the evil planners relying upon the strictest interpretation of the law.

    The house looks fine, a positive addition to the neighborhood. Stuff like this makes me lean toward the libertarian.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally posted by Gotta Speakup
    Strangely enough, it is impossible to build anything in Boston other than a single family house on a quarter acre lot without a zoning varience. When the current code was adopted (in the 1950s?) the powers that be must have had a bad case of suburbs envy.
    The BRA is currently in the process of rezoning the entire city. So, your statement does not apply to a lot of neighborhoods. I think they are working on Roslindale and West Roxbury now.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally posted by jmello
    The BRA is currently in the process of rezoning the entire city. So, your statement does not apply to a lot of neighborhoods. I think they are working on Roslindale and West Roxbury now.

    Its good to know they are fixing this problem then.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,580

    City Prioritized BRA Amendment for Melville Case

    All Contents © Copyright 2005, Boston Neighborhood News, Inc.

    City Prioritized BRA Amendment for Melville Case
    April 21, 2005
    By Jim O'Sullivan, News Editor

    As Dorchester activists remain skeptical about proposed amendments to city zoning laws, internal City Hall documents reveal that Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) officials negotiated the terms of the multi-neighborhood change with attorneys working for owners of a controversial Melville Avenue property.

    The records also reveal that the Menino Administration considered the political dimensions of the 99 Melville Ave. case, and that BRA officials structuring the amendment took into account how an attorney for the owners of that property could "use" the change.

    "There is a lawsuit pending and the Mayor has made clear his commitment to resolving that matter - which can happen only with this zoning amendment," Rebecca Lee, special counsel to the BRA director, wrote in a March 30 e-mail, responding to Rebecca Barnes, the BRA's chief planner, who had suggested delaying the amendment due to concern over "controversial issues in the next few months."

    On February 28, Lee asked BRA designers to "fix" the amendment quickly, reasoning that 99 Melville attorney "Marty Healy may be able to use it in the litigation later."

    Before Mayor Thomas M. Menino appointed her to the BRA last November as director Mark Maloney's legal adviser, Lee worked in the real estate department of Goodwin Procter, the law firm representing the 99 Melville Ave. owners.

    The documents, obtained by the Reporter under the Freedom of the Information Act, pertain to suggested changes in the way the city permits lots for developments. Richard Shaklik, the BRA deputy director for zoning, told the Reporter in March that one amendment would define "lot frontage" and "lot width" as the same measurement, repairing an "oversight" in the code. The other, he said, would add lot frontage to a clause in the code regulating exceptions to minimum lot size. Shaklik, who proposed the amendment in a February 24 memorandum, said the changes would apply only to existing lots which meet pre-existing standards, including "at least three-fourths of the minimum lot size and lot width requirements."

    Officials maintain that the alterations amount to minor clerical adjustments.

    But BRA and administration officials admit they don't have an estimate of how many lots could be impacted by the amendment, which is marked for enactment in Dorchester, Roxbury, Fenway, Allston-Brighton, and East Boston.

    Allston-Brighton Councillor Jerry McDermott has asked that his neighborhood be ruled exempt from the change, and said Tuesday that he has not heard back from the BRA about how many units would be affected there.

    In a March 25 e-mail, Lee asked BRA officials for an answer to the same question.

    The most recent document obtained by the Reporter is dated March 31.

    Amendment's beginning

    McDermott said that Allston-Brighton residents "are concerned, and rightfully so, that what seems like a minor technical amendment could have a wide-reaching impact. You would think that before the BRA suggested a large change, that they would know the ramifications of such a change."

    Dorchester City Councillor Maureen Feeney has championed the amendment, calling consternation over it "driven for the wrong reason."

    Feeney has also championed the cause of the O'Flahertys, the Melville Ave. family who constructed a single-family home beside their two-family, after the city's zoning board of appeals (ZBA) approved BRA-opposed variances in the design plans in 2001. Several neighbors fiercely opposed the building, and three - Peter Ent, John Young, and Yvonne Ruggles, wife of Menino spokesman DeWayne Lehman - filed suit against the appeals board.

    Years of legal and behind-the-scenes wrangling ensued, with the O'Flahertys completing construction despite court warnings that 99 Melville would have to be torn down. In January, a state appeals court sided with the plaintiffs and earlier decisions that the ZBA "acted in excess of its authority" in granting the variances and that the home should come down.

    Records show that the city almost immediately began reconsidering its zoning code, collaborating with O'Flaherty attorney Martin Healy, the Goodwin Procter lawyer who has edited the "Massachusetts Zoning Manual" since 1989, and advised Big Dig permitters.

    Healy repeatedly offered comments and proposed changes to the amendment, and Lee encouraged BRA officials to check their plans with Healy, on February 23 asking BRA land use counsel Donald Wiest to "connect directly with Marty."

    Healy did not respond to a voicemail left at his office.

    "It's consistent with BRA practices that we provide draft memos," and consult outside parties, said BRA spokeswoman Susan Elsbree, "so that they know what we're contemplating."

    Barbara Gruenthal, attorney for the plaintiffs and thus Healy's opponent, said Wednesday she was not consulted, and didn't learn that an amendment was in the works until March 3, a week after Shaklik's memo outlined the plan.

    Elsbree said she didn't know how Healy learned of the amendment.

    'Mired in other issues'

    On March 30, Shaklik sent an e-mail to Maloney and several other BRA officials, including Lee, summarizing a meeting with two other BRA officials and Menino's neighborhood services director Jay Walsh, and expressing skepticism about the amendments' chances of winning popular support. Shaklik acknowledged residents' "feeling that these neighborhoods are being 'over developed' and that the ZBA has been too generous in granting zoning relief," and said amendment opponents "feel that the only reason the amendment is being proposed is to benefit the homeowner in the 99 Melville Avenue case."

    Shaklik wrote, "The proposed amendment is defensible from a technical zoning perspective but has obviously become mired in other issues … Consequently, the proposed amendment is likely to become more controversial and receive more press attention as we move forward."

    In a reply the next day, Maloney wrote, "I am disappointed that the meeting mentioned below did not include Rebecca Lee. She has been working on this with [city policy and planning chief] Michael Kineavy and the Mayor. I believe the best strategy is to accomplish the technical correction for Dorchester right away and then strategize about doing the rest of the communities that could become involved. Please connect with Rebecca right away so that we can proceed on that basis."

    'You don't need this'

    On March 22, a hearing before the zoning commission - which establishes code policy, whereas the zoning board interprets it - drew 50 people, many of whom, including city councillors, said they learned of it at the last minute. At Menino's behest, according to the documents, the commission delayed a vote on the amendment until a series of public meetings could be held in the affected neighborhoods.

    After councillors and activists ripped the vetting process as too secretive, city officials scheduled a Dorchester meeting on the amendment for 6:30 p.m., Monday, April 25, at the IBEW Hall on Freeport St., and are planning separate discussions for the other neighborhoods.

    Since the 99 Melville Ave. case first put neighbors at odds in 2001, it's been politically-laden, with Feeney vocally supportive of the O'Flahertys, and City Councillor Charles Yancey - who lives around the corner and in whose district the property actually sits - staying largely clear of the battle. Susan Tracy, the politically-wired former state representative and Jacqueline O'Flaherty's aunt, has advocated for the O'Flahertys' cause.

    Yancey did not respond to messages left at his office.

    As recently as last month, the lingering, election year political implications, popped up on the administration's radar screen, when Patrick Lee, a partner in the Dorchester development firm Trinity Financial and the husband of former Menino chief-of-staff Alyce Lee, who left that post in 1995, contacted Kineavy.

    On March 8, Patrick Lee e-mailed Kineavy that local opponents of 99 Melville Ave. visited him and his wife the day before. The opponents, Lee warned, "are girding for battle." Lee said they were not seeking the house's demolition, but rather an apology and the reimbursement of $70,000 in legal bills.

    Lee continued, "You all don't need this fight, not now and probably, not ever … Michael, seems like there is a solution to this problem that has the Mayor being a savior, rather than pitted against some of the neighbors on Melville Avenue."

    Later the same day, Lee wrote to Maloney that he thought "an avoidable political fight is looming" and offered to help broker a compromise.

    In a March 11 e-mail to Lee, Kineavy wrote, "[I]t would be great to find some way to bridge the gap here. The e-mail was the first time that I heard that the opposition's ultimate goal wasn't to have the house torn down. That's our starting point too. So maybe there is some room for compromise. Alyce suggested that Mark may have some ideas around the money side of the issue."

    But less than two weeks later Lee had grown less sanguine about reaching a solution. In a March 22 e-mail, the day of the zoning commission hearing, he told Kineavy and Maloney, "The conversations I have had with people on both sides of the case don't leave me with the hope that the parties can work this out together. There has been too much personal animosity over the many years. Mark, the conversations didn't even progress to the point where it made sense to put the idea you and I discussed on the table."

    Kineavy, through eastern Dorchester liaison Molly Dunford, deferred all questions to the BRA.

    Patrick Lee did not immediately respond to a voicemail left at his office.

    Scope tough to judge

    While the BRA insists that the changes would amount to a correction of an ambiguity in the code, no figures have been offered which estimate how many units meet its terms, leaving questions for McDermott and others.

    "To be honest, I really don't understand what the full impact of this is going to be on Dorchester and the other neighborhoods," said Rosanne Foley, an Ashmont Hill activist.

    In a February 23 e-mail, Wiest wrote, "Once enacted, our text amendments will have the effect of immediately legalizing any proposed or current project that complies with a minimum lot size exemption provision in every way other than lot frontage," but did not speculate about how many projects would be ruled legal.

    Since sending an e-mail to approximately 50 community leaders in southeastern Dorchester soliciting properties that might qualify, Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association Philip J. Carver, a frequent zoning policy critic, said he has received 120 responses, but hasn't confirmed they meet the standards.

    Michael Cote, a Fields Corner activist who has studied the zoning code for nearly a decade, said the city's online property records don't allow for easy figuring of which lots would qualify.

    "It's extremely complicated to even figure out whether an individual lot meets the requirement, let alone across the entire city," Cote said.

    While officials have publicly insisted they conceived the amendment because of issues the Melville Ave. case brought to light, instead of as a means of legalizing the property, Shaklik's March 30 e-mail acknowledged the widespread sentiment to the contrary, one that Cote echoed.

    "Everything about this looks to me like the city is going out of its way to change the rules so they can say that they were right all along, and that the people who challenged them [over 99 Melville] were wrong," Cote said.

    "It's not because of the case, but because of the case we've seen deficiencies in the code," Elsbree said.

    "Not everything is a conspiracy," said Feeney. "Sometimes it's about good government and doing the right thing and making sure that our laws and the language in the laws are appropriate."

  12. #12
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    8,252
    Blog entries
    1

    What a joke!

    What a complete bunch of garbage!
    Great example of politics & dated regulation over common sense.
    If that picture is correct, that looks very nice!!! If there ever was a better example of Innocuous and inoffensive development that appears to meet the design and character of the neighborhood.....ARRGGGHH

    This is why variances were created.......and I agree, what was the rationale for the judge overturning this case??? It has to be procedural due process or the like....I mean sure a superior court judge could support the NIMBYism and be a maverick, but the appeals court???? (my uncle is a superior court judge in Boston, maybe I should ask him?) That's strange....why wouldn't they remand it back to the board to do a better job of clarification on the findings (physical hardship related to the original lot layout)??? The board would approve it again after hours of NIMBY testimony and include decent findings......what gives??? Who's driveway is that, on the right side of the home??

    Of course the real issue is always lost in the politics and NIMBYism....does this house work in that location? The added traffic issue is a JOKE and the lack of air....huh?....I think the lack of air occured before the home was built The trees will take away just as much solar exposure, why not knock those down too......

    It doesn't help that these people most likely pulled the politics card early in the process......Oh and what gives with the permit being issued with a warning like "oh, you build at your own risk"....if anything, the city will be buying that house, if the owner is smart enough to sue and go all the way.....

    end of rant.
    “The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But, the way of non-violence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.”
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    - See more at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-ph....r7W02j3S.dpuf

  13. #13
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally posted by The One
    This is why variances were created.......and I agree, what was the rationale for the judge overturning this case???
    I don't think it met the legal threshold for a variance.

    Who's driveway is that, on the right side of the home??
    That is theirs. They own the 2-family to the right as well. That's where they lived for years before building the single-family on the left.

  14. #14
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    8,252
    Blog entries
    1

    Hmmmm....

    I still like it, but maybe they should have gone after another zone district that would better accomodate the multiple units......?
    “The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But, the way of non-violence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.”
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    - See more at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-ph....r7W02j3S.dpuf

  15. #15
    Cyburbian dogandpony's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    84
    I'm afraid there's a lot of missing information that wouldn't let me comment objectively. The photo doesn't really allow you to determine whether the house is going to impact the neighborhood, since it's really not showing it in a neighborhood context.

    I'm sure a lot of us can look at this and envision it fitting into a particular neighborhood that we're familiar with, but I can also picture it being built in other, larger lot areas and being completely out of character.

    Sure, it's a fairly attractive house, nothing patently offensive, and doesn't overwhelm the house next door, but it would be helpful to know what the neighbohood view is (everyone else's lots are 100 or 150 feet wide, on half an acre, these are 50 feet wide, etc.)

    It would be key to know whether the lots were previously platted at this dimension. Being 45 feet wide and just short of the required 50 feet is the NORM where I'm at. We allow construction on legally platted lots which are nonconforming without any relief whatsoever, and that's probably not unusual.

  16. #16
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    106
    This situation shows what is wrong with zoning. In many densely populated Northeastern cities especially, regulation after regulation gets piled on the books until nothing can be built without variances. Someone wanting to build a simple house has no choice but to fight through an expensive gaunlet of career bureaucrats. The law leans anyone wanting to build anything, while giving ammunition to the losers who whine about more traffic and blocked views.

    I prospose trashing these crazy zoning regulations. Probably a couple dumsters would be required to handle the volume of paper. Keep on the books and enforce only the regulations needed to ensure life safety.

    Nobody can disagree the Boston's best urban neighborhoods took their shape before zoning existed. Zoning is the problem, not the solution.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian boilerplater's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Heaven or Las Vegas
    Posts
    916
    What a colossal waste of human energy! Happiness can't possibly be found in 4.74 feet! The house looks fine and in scale in footprint with the others shown on the map. This looks like an example of selfish NIMBYism.

  18. #18
          ABS's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    104
    That is absolutely pathetic! They are making a fuss over nothing.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally posted by dogandpony
    I'm afraid there's a lot of missing information that wouldn't let me comment objectively. The photo doesn't really allow you to determine whether the house is going to impact the neighborhood, since it's really not showing it in a neighborhood context.
    The rest of the neighborhood looks exactly like the houses in the photo.

  20. #20

    another perspective

    Thanks to those of you interested in this case, and your very welcoming forum. I am not a planner, just one of the abutters, and plaintiffs in the case mentioned here. To clarify some points you raised...the decision was not solely based on the lack of procedure of the ZBA, but also the creation of two non-conforming lots by subdividing the property. There were four main points to the case, but once one is determined to have merit, the rest don't need individual reponse by the court. The second decision (Court of Appeal) focused more on the efforts of the developer to prove the property met the conditions for the exception clause (grandfathering) but the court determined this was not the case. The city had an opportunity two years ago, when the Superior Court remanded the case back to the ZBA, to 'clarify' the provision they now contend has been misinterpreted, but did not do so, nor did they when the zoning code for Dorchester was upgraded for the first time in forty years (also two years ago).

    At the time this proposal came to the neighborhood, the BRA was revising the code for Dorchester (the city's largest geographic and most populated neighborhood). Our neighborhood was designated a design overlay district (Wellesley Park, the first planned subdivision in the country, is here, as well as a trio of Arthur Vinal homes and the work of other notable late 1800s planners and architects) and the minimum zoning requirements were increased and certain design elements added. While this area was certainly developed by the wealthy more than 100 years ago, its current inhabitants are mostly working and middle-class, as well as some with the resources to hire others for their restoration projects and landscaping. I won't deny that it is changing now that the interest in city living seems to be growing, and prices in Boston seem to disqualify everyone but the wealthy from ownership. As far as the surrounding homes, I would suggest the photos are not representative of the mix. And, as an example, my lot across the street is 120' of frontage, with one building, whereas the new subdivision is two lots and three buildings with only 87' (total) of frontage.

    My interest is in understanding how planners view zoning laws and what residents should really expect from the codes particularly in urban areas. Boston is a city described as having 'subjective' zoning, or zoning by variance--is it that way everywhere? And what are your views on preservation--is it considered nimby to agree that a neighborhood like ours has historic value (and we are not talking about colors etc.) and to hold the city accountable for that designation? In Beacon Hill nobody gets a variance, but in Roxbury and Dorchester you can build anything anywhere.

    So, sorry to be long-winded. Thanks for letting me join the debate.

  21. #21
    Cyburbian AubieTurtle's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Downtown Atlanta
    Posts
    894
    Am I the only one who thinks it was foolish for them to go ahead with construction when they were warned by the judge that an unfavorable ruling would mean they would have to tear down the house? Even if they were confident they were going to win, they're not the court. I can only guess they felt it they went ahead and built it that the large financial consequences of a negative ruling would be considered by the court in order to rule in their favor.

    Without knowing all the facts, I don't want to give a strong opinion either way on the variance, but geez, when someone does something stupid like build a 400K house after being warned it might have to be demolished, I almost want them to lose. Playing chicken with the courts is a dangerous game.

  22. #22
    Cyburbian RandomPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Missing up north from the low country
    Posts
    1,275
    Quote Originally posted by AubieTurtle
    Am I the only one who thinks it was foolish for them to go ahead with construction when they were warned by the judge that an unfavorable ruling would mean they would have to tear down the house?
    Without knowing all the facts, I don't want to give a strong opinion either way on the variance, but geez, when someone does something stupid like build a 400K house after being warned it might have to be demolished, I almost want them to lose. Playing chicken with the courts is a dangerous game.
    Also, I have to raise my eyebrows a bit at a family that continually claims to be 'working class' and can afford this kind of 2nd home. I admit I don't have Boston's standard of living, but still...doesn't sound too blue collar to me !!
    How do I know you are who you think you are?

  23. #23

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by RandomPlanner...
    Also, I have to raise my eyebrows a bit at a family that continually claims to be 'working class' and can afford this kind of 2nd home. I admit I don't have Boston's standard of living, but still...doesn't sound too blue collar to me !!
    LOL. You should see the palatial "Tara" owned by a local body shop owner. A very low key, blue collar guy.

  24. #24
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally posted by RandomPlanner...
    Also, I have to raise my eyebrows a bit at a family that continually claims to be 'working class' and can afford this kind of 2nd home. I admit I don't have Boston's standard of living, but still...doesn't sound too blue collar to me !!
    They were building the second house to live in, and planned to sell/rent their current house. This was not a vacation home.

    P.S. Blue collar jobs here pay much, much more than elsewhere due to high unionization rates.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally posted by jmello
    They were building the second house to live in, and planned to sell/rent their current house. This was not a vacation home.

    P.S. Blue collar jobs here pay much, much more than elsewhere due to high unionization rates.


    It may not be a vacation home, but most of us are not in a position to own two houses, whether or not one is 'to sell/rent' (the difference between struggling family and savvy developer is what?). This family was able to purchase a home for $1.00 from a family trust and within six years construct a second home, imply that the third building will be developed into more units, and has seen the property appreciate to easily $1M. But their personal success is a private issue while the public policy and process surrounding the case is the heart of the matter, because there is no point in creating zoning laws and expending resources on the process designed to enforce them if it is merely window dressing. I think then that the libertarians are right--why bother with zoning laws at all. At least we can all have the same expectations if anything/everything goes.

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 3
    Last post: 29 Aug 2013, 9:07 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last post: 14 Mar 2008, 12:28 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last post: 28 Jun 2007, 1:33 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last post: 28 Apr 2005, 9:27 PM
  5. Zoning dispute:Takings lawsuit
    Perry's Cantina (archive)
    Replies: 4
    Last post: 24 Aug 2001, 10:59 PM