ZBA variance on 63 Tremont St annulled
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Eric Mauro
Oct 26, 2009, 10:23:24 PM10/26/09
to AllstonBrighton2006
The variance granted by the ZBA to Carlo Tramantozzi for a 5-unit
development at 63 Tremont St. has been annulled in Suffolk Superior
Court.
development at 63 Tremont St. has been annulled in Suffolk Superior
Court.
Eva Webster
Oct 27, 2009, 2:45:47 AM10/27/09
to AllstonBrighton2006, ABRA Group, BC_Neighb...@googlegroups.com, ab...@googlegroups.com
Wow! Any details? Who appealed that variance (individual or a group of people)? Who was the lawyer who represented them?
This is great! Maybe it's the beginning of A-B homeowners finally getting sick of being victimized by arbitrary zoning variances — and realizing that we must do what homeowners in nearby towns usually do when their quality of life is threatened (i.e., take things to court where, thankfully, zoning and the rule of law still count for something).
This person who decided to seek justice should be lauded as a neighborhood hero (I’m serious — maybe we should throw a dinner party for him/her, or something).
All those zoning variances that increase density, cumulatively, have the potential of destroying the character of A-B and, eventually, displacing most of us who value living in a semi-urban environment.
But isn’t it strange that folks in West Roxbury somehow don’t need to worry about THEIR neighborhood becoming excessively urbanized.
Voting is the answer.
This is great! Maybe it's the beginning of A-B homeowners finally getting sick of being victimized by arbitrary zoning variances — and realizing that we must do what homeowners in nearby towns usually do when their quality of life is threatened (i.e., take things to court where, thankfully, zoning and the rule of law still count for something).
This person who decided to seek justice should be lauded as a neighborhood hero (I’m serious — maybe we should throw a dinner party for him/her, or something).
All those zoning variances that increase density, cumulatively, have the potential of destroying the character of A-B and, eventually, displacing most of us who value living in a semi-urban environment.
But isn’t it strange that folks in West Roxbury somehow don’t need to worry about THEIR neighborhood becoming excessively urbanized.
Voting is the answer.
abbyfurey
Oct 26, 2009, 11:16:43 PM10/26/09
to AllstonBrighton2006
Do you know what the basis was for the court's action?
Eric Mauro
Oct 27, 2009, 12:03:11 PM10/27/09
to AllstonBrighton2006
A group of abutters banded together to oppose the variance from the
beginning, and we decided to go to court after the ZBA hearing where
our concerns were dismissed out of hand, unfairly in our view. The
attorneys for Tramantozzi were Larry Di Cara and Joseph Tierney, while
the attorneys for the plaintiffs were David Jackowitz and Craig
Nickerson of the firm Shaeval & Krems.
We made the effort on the recommendation of the attorneys to have an
expert appraiser look at the situation and do a professional property
comparison.
On the neighborhood effects, because we had several different
abutters, we were able to testify about the effects of the present
rental property on Tramantozzi's land on some abutters. We were then
able to argue that a new rental property would bring the same effects
within the same distance of another abutter. Because the new building
also would include roof decks and outdoor patios, that was a
significant change from the present character of the neighborhood
where even the large buildings on Tremont St do not have outdoor
roofdecks and patios. The judge felt that our concerns about parking,
traffic, and safety access did not have any expert backing.
We also hired a building consultant to be ready for the claims we
expected Tramantozzi to make vis a vis hardship and extra building
costs. In the end, he did not present any evidence about the building
costs so he was not able to make any argument about why he should have
been allowed to exceed the variance. We argued that he was making an
effort to maximize the use of his land which is not a legal reason for
a variance.
We also made an effort to include the official zoning recommendations
for the neighborhood. In one amusing episode, Tierney read them as a
description of the neighborhood including five-family units but
ellipsed away the part about how they recommend one and two family
houses only. Such are the tactics of these people.
beginning, and we decided to go to court after the ZBA hearing where
our concerns were dismissed out of hand, unfairly in our view. The
attorneys for Tramantozzi were Larry Di Cara and Joseph Tierney, while
the attorneys for the plaintiffs were David Jackowitz and Craig
Nickerson of the firm Shaeval & Krems.
We made the effort on the recommendation of the attorneys to have an
expert appraiser look at the situation and do a professional property
comparison.
On the neighborhood effects, because we had several different
abutters, we were able to testify about the effects of the present
rental property on Tramantozzi's land on some abutters. We were then
able to argue that a new rental property would bring the same effects
within the same distance of another abutter. Because the new building
also would include roof decks and outdoor patios, that was a
significant change from the present character of the neighborhood
where even the large buildings on Tremont St do not have outdoor
roofdecks and patios. The judge felt that our concerns about parking,
traffic, and safety access did not have any expert backing.
We also hired a building consultant to be ready for the claims we
expected Tramantozzi to make vis a vis hardship and extra building
costs. In the end, he did not present any evidence about the building
costs so he was not able to make any argument about why he should have
been allowed to exceed the variance. We argued that he was making an
effort to maximize the use of his land which is not a legal reason for
a variance.
We also made an effort to include the official zoning recommendations
for the neighborhood. In one amusing episode, Tierney read them as a
description of the neighborhood including five-family units but
ellipsed away the part about how they recommend one and two family
houses only. Such are the tactics of these people.
Eva Webster
Oct 27, 2009, 12:17:09 PM10/27/09
to AllstonBrighton2006
On 10/26/09 11:16 PM, "abbyfurey" <abigai...@aol.com> wrote:
> Do you know what the basis was for the court's action?
> Do you know what the basis was for the court's action?
What do you mean by "basis for the court's action", Abby? Zoning is the law — and that part of Brighton is zoned for 2-family dwellings. That’s the basis.
A property owner is legally entitled to a zoning variance if he/she can demonstrate so-called “hardship” -- and wanting to make profit is not a legitimate basis for a variance. Apparently the court concluded that the owner of the parcel in this case could easily build a 2-family dwelling on that parcel.
The ZBA can grant a variance, but it doesn’t change the underlying zoning. When a variance is granted, it only becomes final when the abutters with legal standing don't appeal it in court within an x number of days (I think it’s 30 days, but I’m not sure). In our neighborhood we have been mostly accepting those ZBA decisions without a peep — due to abutters’ lack of knowledge, resolve, or financial resources to file a suit.
(By the way, all of that does not apply to re-zoning, which is done by the Zoning Commission, not the ZBA -- some people confuse those two. When an non-profit institution buys a large piece of land, the law says that new zoning needs to be in place to reflect institutional use. So Institutional Master Plan replaces prior zoning.)
A property owner is legally entitled to a zoning variance if he/she can demonstrate so-called “hardship” -- and wanting to make profit is not a legitimate basis for a variance. Apparently the court concluded that the owner of the parcel in this case could easily build a 2-family dwelling on that parcel.
The ZBA can grant a variance, but it doesn’t change the underlying zoning. When a variance is granted, it only becomes final when the abutters with legal standing don't appeal it in court within an x number of days (I think it’s 30 days, but I’m not sure). In our neighborhood we have been mostly accepting those ZBA decisions without a peep — due to abutters’ lack of knowledge, resolve, or financial resources to file a suit.
(By the way, all of that does not apply to re-zoning, which is done by the Zoning Commission, not the ZBA -- some people confuse those two. When an non-profit institution buys a large piece of land, the law says that new zoning needs to be in place to reflect institutional use. So Institutional Master Plan replaces prior zoning.)
Eric Mauro
Oct 27, 2009, 1:56:56 PM10/27/09
to AllstonBrighton2006
I should make it clear that part of the decision was on the matter of
whether we had standing to appeal the ZBA decision, and that is where
the air quality, lights, noise, etc was important.
The other part was whether the variance should have been granted, and
that had to do with showing hardship etc on the part of Tramantozzi.
I mixed them up and I often see people doing that when talking about
these development projects.
If anybody wants to see the decision, it's a matter of public record,
but I have it in PDF so mail me personally and I will forward it to
you, it's about 18 pages long.
Eric
On Oct 27, 12:17 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
whether we had standing to appeal the ZBA decision, and that is where
the air quality, lights, noise, etc was important.
The other part was whether the variance should have been granted, and
that had to do with showing hardship etc on the part of Tramantozzi.
I mixed them up and I often see people doing that when talking about
these development projects.
If anybody wants to see the decision, it's a matter of public record,
but I have it in PDF so mail me personally and I will forward it to
you, it's about 18 pages long.
Eric
On Oct 27, 12:17 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
Shirley Kressel
Oct 27, 2009, 2:30:40 PM10/27/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Thank you, Abby, for explaining all this so clearly, and especially, for reminding people that zoning is the law -- not, as the BRA pretends, a guideline, or a starting point, or a preference, or a vague hint, or some "flexible" rules it can change on a developer's request.
That's why it's so important to have a code that is not riddled with un-zoning finagles (PDA, U-District, IMP, 121A) -- in which there is no variance process and no legal recourse.
Shirley
abbyfurey
Oct 27, 2009, 5:04:23 PM10/27/09
to AllstonBrighton2006
Shirley: I agree with your sentiment, but the credit should go to
Eva, not me. She wrote the piece about zoning and the law.
On Oct 27, 2:30 pm, Shirley Kressel <shirley.kres...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> 617-515-3403 cell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eva, not me. She wrote the piece about zoning and the law.
On Oct 27, 2:30 pm, Shirley Kressel <shirley.kres...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shirley Kressel
Oct 27, 2009, 10:36:35 PM10/27/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Oh, I see, I didn't follow the dialogue string right.
OK, thank you, Eva.
We've been discussing this for years in the Alliance of Boston
Neighborhoods. Yet so few people realize how it works.
OK, thank you, Eva.
We've been discussing this for years in the Alliance of Boston
Neighborhoods. Yet so few people realize how it works.
Eva Webster
Oct 28, 2009, 3:50:35 AM10/28/09
to AllstonBrighton2006, ABRA Group
Many thanks to Eric for all that useful information about the 63 Tremont Street matter. The law firm of Shaeval & Krems is probably going to be hearing from affected abutters of some other objectionable projects in A-B.
It’s wonderful that Eric and his neighbors prevailed in court — but they would not have to go through that protracted, money- and energy-consuming process if the City hadn’t stiffed them with a decision that favored one developer over many abutters’ quality of life.
I just really resent the fact that we who live and pay taxes here so often have to put our lives on hold to organize against zoning variances that are in some cases just ridiculous, and shouldn’t be even given the green light to go to the ZBA.
Case in point: 1954 Comm. Ave. -- the developer wants to build a boxy, modern (mostly glass) 7-STORY ADDITION to a 2.5 story historic stucco house — by squeezing the new structure in the back with practically no setbacks.
A part of the proposed addition (six of the seven stories) would be hanging right over the hipped (ceramic tile) roof of the adjacent carriage house, looking totally grotesque. (FYI, both the main house and the carriage house are protected under the Aberdeen Architectural Conservation District — hence the ludicrous architectural gymnastics to fit the oversized addition where there is not enough room to accommodate such a thing.)
This 16-unit project is going to the ZBA on November 17 having undergone NO REVIEW by the BRA or the Landmarks Commission. The affected abutters — most of whom have already attended many neighborhood meetings on this issue in the last few years -- will now have to take time off from work to go to the ZBA hearing in City Hall. What an imposition!
By the way, each of the public meetings re. 1954 Comm. Ave. that took place in the neighborhood clearly demonstrated that the abutters are adamantly opposed to this project exceeding zoning — so decision makers in City Hall know that.
And this is the umpteenth time that I personally experience stress, and have to spend my time -- together with many other residents — dealing with a project that a developer wants to ram through with no considerations for zoning. We are tired of it.
The developer is represented by McDermott, Quilty & Miller -- a law firm whose partners make regular campaign contributions to nearly all our elected officials (if anyone is interested, here is a Globe article about this firm: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/03/liquor_licenses_a_specialty_for_firm/ )
I’m sure that our elected officials would be quick to point out that accepting MQM’s money doesn’t necessarily compromise their judgment/objectivity — but what better way to prove that than to decline those contributions, and thus eliminate the perception of conflict of interest? Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s right.
If you are a citizen who cares about the long-term future of Alston-Brighton, you essentially have no choice but to deal with zoning issues all the time. It almost seems like it’s a natural, unavoidable part of living here — but it shouldn’t be that way.
Life is short! Year after year, all this time we spend on dealing with development issues is the time we don’t have for other important things in our lives. That time is being STOLEN from us.
When I lived in Brookline years ago (prior to moving to Brighton), I and our then neighbors didn’t even know what a zoning variance was. There was no need to know about such things; the neighborhood had reassuring stability. You could just focus on your professional and personal life, celebrate holidays, take trips, exercise, read, cook or indulge in other hobbies -- just LIVE!
Brookline is a desirable place where developers would be more than happy to build above what zoning allows — and yet it happens very rarely. I just don’t understand why Brookline decision makers appreciate the need to protect the quality of life of the town’s homeowners/taxpayers, and in Boston it is NOT a given, and always amounts to a struggle.
Is it just because construction unions donate to, and otherwise pressure Boston politicians to create work for them? That is a legitimate goal — to keep people employed – but it should not be happening at the expense of compromising the quality of life of Boston residents. (Also, construction jobs can be had in renovation/restorations projects, “green” improvements, expanding public infrastructure, and in the suburbs too!)
There is so much talk these days about Boston being, or becoming, a better city — but if I were to name a single most aggravating issue that I think seriously RUINS the quality of life for lots of people, it is the frequent stress that is inflicted on us as a result of a constant stream of zoning variance applications.
I don’t buy it that the City of Boston has no choice but to give those overreaching developers a hearing at the ZBA any time they dream out a project requiring variances. In the towns/cities that surround Boston, the town/city development people do not automatically advance every frivolous or overly ambitious variance application to a hearing. There is a “filter” in place that strives to protect homeowners’ interests.
If Boston was just as protective of homeowners’ interests, we would have higher owner-occupancy rates, higher tax revenues, better schools, lower crime, better esthetics -- and truly economically integrated and diverse neighborhoods.
It’s wonderful that Eric and his neighbors prevailed in court — but they would not have to go through that protracted, money- and energy-consuming process if the City hadn’t stiffed them with a decision that favored one developer over many abutters’ quality of life.
I just really resent the fact that we who live and pay taxes here so often have to put our lives on hold to organize against zoning variances that are in some cases just ridiculous, and shouldn’t be even given the green light to go to the ZBA.
Case in point: 1954 Comm. Ave. -- the developer wants to build a boxy, modern (mostly glass) 7-STORY ADDITION to a 2.5 story historic stucco house — by squeezing the new structure in the back with practically no setbacks.
A part of the proposed addition (six of the seven stories) would be hanging right over the hipped (ceramic tile) roof of the adjacent carriage house, looking totally grotesque. (FYI, both the main house and the carriage house are protected under the Aberdeen Architectural Conservation District — hence the ludicrous architectural gymnastics to fit the oversized addition where there is not enough room to accommodate such a thing.)
This 16-unit project is going to the ZBA on November 17 having undergone NO REVIEW by the BRA or the Landmarks Commission. The affected abutters — most of whom have already attended many neighborhood meetings on this issue in the last few years -- will now have to take time off from work to go to the ZBA hearing in City Hall. What an imposition!
By the way, each of the public meetings re. 1954 Comm. Ave. that took place in the neighborhood clearly demonstrated that the abutters are adamantly opposed to this project exceeding zoning — so decision makers in City Hall know that.
And this is the umpteenth time that I personally experience stress, and have to spend my time -- together with many other residents — dealing with a project that a developer wants to ram through with no considerations for zoning. We are tired of it.
The developer is represented by McDermott, Quilty & Miller -- a law firm whose partners make regular campaign contributions to nearly all our elected officials (if anyone is interested, here is a Globe article about this firm: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/03/liquor_licenses_a_specialty_for_firm/ )
I’m sure that our elected officials would be quick to point out that accepting MQM’s money doesn’t necessarily compromise their judgment/objectivity — but what better way to prove that than to decline those contributions, and thus eliminate the perception of conflict of interest? Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s right.
If you are a citizen who cares about the long-term future of Alston-Brighton, you essentially have no choice but to deal with zoning issues all the time. It almost seems like it’s a natural, unavoidable part of living here — but it shouldn’t be that way.
Life is short! Year after year, all this time we spend on dealing with development issues is the time we don’t have for other important things in our lives. That time is being STOLEN from us.
When I lived in Brookline years ago (prior to moving to Brighton), I and our then neighbors didn’t even know what a zoning variance was. There was no need to know about such things; the neighborhood had reassuring stability. You could just focus on your professional and personal life, celebrate holidays, take trips, exercise, read, cook or indulge in other hobbies -- just LIVE!
Brookline is a desirable place where developers would be more than happy to build above what zoning allows — and yet it happens very rarely. I just don’t understand why Brookline decision makers appreciate the need to protect the quality of life of the town’s homeowners/taxpayers, and in Boston it is NOT a given, and always amounts to a struggle.
Is it just because construction unions donate to, and otherwise pressure Boston politicians to create work for them? That is a legitimate goal — to keep people employed – but it should not be happening at the expense of compromising the quality of life of Boston residents. (Also, construction jobs can be had in renovation/restorations projects, “green” improvements, expanding public infrastructure, and in the suburbs too!)
There is so much talk these days about Boston being, or becoming, a better city — but if I were to name a single most aggravating issue that I think seriously RUINS the quality of life for lots of people, it is the frequent stress that is inflicted on us as a result of a constant stream of zoning variance applications.
I don’t buy it that the City of Boston has no choice but to give those overreaching developers a hearing at the ZBA any time they dream out a project requiring variances. In the towns/cities that surround Boston, the town/city development people do not automatically advance every frivolous or overly ambitious variance application to a hearing. There is a “filter” in place that strives to protect homeowners’ interests.
If Boston was just as protective of homeowners’ interests, we would have higher owner-occupancy rates, higher tax revenues, better schools, lower crime, better esthetics -- and truly economically integrated and diverse neighborhoods.
colleen salmon
Oct 28, 2009, 10:30:11 AM10/28/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
| Good luck on the 17th, Eva. --- On Wed, 10/28/09, Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> wrote: |
Shirley Kressel
Oct 28, 2009, 10:55:05 AM10/28/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Years ago, the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeal institute an administrative pre-review of each application, using an application form that is a checklist of the hardships defined by law as qualification for a variance, to screen out the applications that clearly do not meet the hardship criteria in the zoning code Article 7 ( http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/zoning/downloadZone.asp). That would vastly reduce the number of attempts to deviate from the code without justification, and the number that are approved.
We might try to organize a community request to make this procedural change.
Shirley
Eva Webster
Oct 28, 2009, 1:44:01 PM10/28/09
to AllstonBrighton2006, ABRA Group
Thanks Colleen and Shirley. Yes! Something MUST be done about this uniquely Boston practice of “rezoning by variance”. It’s deplorable. It fosters the culture of wheeling-dealing and influence-peddling that poisons our civic life.
Giving variances willy-nilly — or even just hearing variance applications when there is clearly no basis for them -- undermines and discredits the law (the Zoning Code), and subjects the neighborhood to constant siege, disrupting our lives.
This has become so ingrained that developers almost never contemplate building projects that would comply with Article 51 (the Zoning Code for A-B) -- while at the same time they are happy to build structures that comply with zoning in other communities in Greater Boston.
But because this ridiculous, distorted system we have in Boston has been in place for so long (decades?), we have decision makers (elected or appointed), developers, and some citizens (even those who may be victimized by it) who think it’s entirely normal. It’s NOT normal. It’s an aberration.
A variance by definition should be a rare exception, granted to remedy some unusual circumstances -- and only when the pros to the community clearly outweigh the cons, and the affected abutters receive some appropriate mitigation (assuming it’s acceptable to them). Additionally, small dimensional variances may be considered when it appears, on the face of it, that they are harmless. THAT’S IT.
But that’s not how it is.
How can we correct this situation? For starts, I call on the Brighton-Allston Improvement Association and the Allston Civic Association to stop engaging in hearing zoning variance cases that have no merit other than enriching the developer or creating jobs for construction unions. Just oppose them right off the bat.
The building trades should be finding work without raping the Zoning Code, without screwing their fellow citizens, and without progressively ruining the character of Boston neighborhoods (if not, some of the union members may need to retrain for different jobs — that’s life).
If neighborhood groups routinely engage in a convoluted and faulty process, they become a part of the problem. If you say no to this nonsense, more than half of your agenda items could be eliminated right away, and you could spend your time on discussing and lobbying for legitimate improvement projects, engaging in volunteer beautification activities, or weighing in on larger socio-political issues.
I believe very strongly that a day will come when homeowners in A-B will become more aware of this issue, more savvy, and more engaged -- and they will not vote for any politician who plays footsie with our Zoning Code.
Giving variances willy-nilly — or even just hearing variance applications when there is clearly no basis for them -- undermines and discredits the law (the Zoning Code), and subjects the neighborhood to constant siege, disrupting our lives.
This has become so ingrained that developers almost never contemplate building projects that would comply with Article 51 (the Zoning Code for A-B) -- while at the same time they are happy to build structures that comply with zoning in other communities in Greater Boston.
But because this ridiculous, distorted system we have in Boston has been in place for so long (decades?), we have decision makers (elected or appointed), developers, and some citizens (even those who may be victimized by it) who think it’s entirely normal. It’s NOT normal. It’s an aberration.
A variance by definition should be a rare exception, granted to remedy some unusual circumstances -- and only when the pros to the community clearly outweigh the cons, and the affected abutters receive some appropriate mitigation (assuming it’s acceptable to them). Additionally, small dimensional variances may be considered when it appears, on the face of it, that they are harmless. THAT’S IT.
But that’s not how it is.
How can we correct this situation? For starts, I call on the Brighton-Allston Improvement Association and the Allston Civic Association to stop engaging in hearing zoning variance cases that have no merit other than enriching the developer or creating jobs for construction unions. Just oppose them right off the bat.
The building trades should be finding work without raping the Zoning Code, without screwing their fellow citizens, and without progressively ruining the character of Boston neighborhoods (if not, some of the union members may need to retrain for different jobs — that’s life).
If neighborhood groups routinely engage in a convoluted and faulty process, they become a part of the problem. If you say no to this nonsense, more than half of your agenda items could be eliminated right away, and you could spend your time on discussing and lobbying for legitimate improvement projects, engaging in volunteer beautification activities, or weighing in on larger socio-political issues.
I believe very strongly that a day will come when homeowners in A-B will become more aware of this issue, more savvy, and more engaged -- and they will not vote for any politician who plays footsie with our Zoning Code.
On 10/28/09 10:55 AM, "Shirley Kressel" <shirley...@verizon.net> wrote:
Shirley Kressel
Oct 28, 2009, 2:09:01 PM10/28/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com, ABRA Group
I agree, Eve, we enable this rogue process by participating, just as we enable the "rezoning by finagle" (PDA's, etc.) when we participate in those CAC's and IAG's, the purpose of which is to do spot zoning under the color of "planning." We should demand that, for variance, only potentially qualifying projects (per Article 7) even be considered, and otherwise, don't even knock on the door. We really should petition to eliminate PDAs from the zoning code, prohibit 121A's, and end the automatic-rezoning power of IMP's, and if we eliminate the BRA, there won't be any U-Districts or "Demonstration Projects," which are mini-urban renewal plans that don't need City Council approval.
I recommend reading Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/opinion/27herbert.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1256753020-NnVgeP6M2ONudsdQPkap/w
We won't get what we want if we don't fight for it. Power is never given, it must be taken.
Eric Mauro
Oct 28, 2009, 2:46:10 PM10/28/09
to AllstonBrighton2006
The variance was granted over the objections of the BAIA and other
city agencies. It's not hard to figure out why. Although the written
recommendations for the neighborhood were a very useful part of our
case, at some level it will always be a contest of power and money.
The surest way to change the actual behavior of the zoning board in
the neighborhood would be to find ways to keep people here when they
gain a higher income, who will reward politicians materially who say
"no" and punish those materially who say "yes". We could never have
started if the participants weren't good earners who were willing to
pay to protect their property.
city agencies. It's not hard to figure out why. Although the written
recommendations for the neighborhood were a very useful part of our
case, at some level it will always be a contest of power and money.
The surest way to change the actual behavior of the zoning board in
the neighborhood would be to find ways to keep people here when they
gain a higher income, who will reward politicians materially who say
"no" and punish those materially who say "yes". We could never have
started if the participants weren't good earners who were willing to
pay to protect their property.
bill haas
Oct 28, 2009, 5:23:45 PM10/28/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Shirley:
So how do we do it "organize a community request to make this procedural change"?
Bill
Shirley Kressel
Oct 28, 2009, 5:31:03 PM10/28/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Well...I guess we write a letter, get a lot of groups and/or individuals to sign, and send it to Mayor and BRA, and press, etc. There is a formal way to petition for a zoning change, but this is not a change of zoning, just an enforcement of process rules. Yammering, basically.
Lisa Kunze
Nov 1, 2009, 7:20:58 PM11/1/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
We have been having issues with zoning in North Allston, too. When my husband and I moved here, there was a single family next door. It was purchased and turned into a 3 family without ANY input from the abbutters. There is inadequate parking, and the developer went far outside the normal size allowed in this area. Now he wants to build another 3 family a block away. This is a 1-2 family area. We are livid about this, but see no recourse. Lisa Kunze
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:30:11 -0700
From: colleen...@yahoo.com
Subject: [AB2006] Re: Dealing with zoning variances
To: allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:30:11 -0700
From: colleen...@yahoo.com
Subject: [AB2006] Re: Dealing with zoning variances
To: allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
|
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Shirley Kressel
Nov 2, 2009, 3:55:14 PM11/2/09
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Why do you see no recourse? Check the zoning code for the sites in question. Find out if he got a variance at the ZBA; if not, he violated the law and you can sue him and the court can even make him tear down the building. If he got a variance but the ZBA didn't follow proper procedure or he didn't meet the hardship criteria of Article 7-3 of the zoning code, you can sue the ZBA, as Eric did.
--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages