The not-pretty answer to why the electronic billboard proposal for 88-94 Lincoln St. is back on the agenda after being rejected a few months ago
Joanne D'Alcomo
There have been questions raised here and elsewhere as to why the issue of a zoning variance for an electronic billboard at 88-94 Lincoln Street, Brighton, is back on the agenda at the zoning Board of Appeal for December 19th, when it was rejected only a few months ago. Well, here’s the story:
The request for a variance was denied at a hearing on May 23, 2017 – after considerable community opposition was presented. The resurfacing of this variance request was surprising because, under the Boston Zoning Code, an application that is denied is not supposed to be able to come up for a hearing again for a year – unless the denial was, in essence, specifically “without prejudice” (or unless there are changes to the application, and in this case there are no changes). It turns out that although the video of the meeting and the minutes of the meeting demonstrate that the decision was not made “without prejudice,” the final written decision – curiously -- says it WAS made “without prejudice.” That written decision—which conflicts with the reality of the hearing -- cleared the way for the item to be put on the agenda again this month, only seven months later.
In my opinion, what happened here – if the Board were to stick with its so-called “decision” -- violated the Open Meeting Law. You can’t have, under the Open Meeting Law, a public hearing where a decision is made in the public view, and then a written decision reflecting an entirely different result. So, I filed a formal written complaint under the Open Meeting Law last week asking that the matter be taken off the agenda. (If you’re interested in the details, my complaint is attached).
By the way, what often happens after Board of Appeal hearings is that the lawyer for the applicant prepares a draft written decision and then submits it to be signed by the Board. (This is sometimes done for regular court decisions, too, in Massachusetts courts, because it’s considered a timesaver ). In the Board’s case, this process is viewed as convenient both for the Board and the applicant. The draft written decision submitted by the applicant’s lawyer is supposed to, of course, be consistent with what occurred at the hearing. In this case, the draft decision was submitted by the applicant’s lawyer, and it was not consistent with what happened at the hearing.
BOTTOM LINE: let’s see what happens. The lawyer for the applicant – who, by the way, used to be the staff lawyer for the Board of Appeal -- has been notified about my Open Meeting Law challenge pointing out that the written “decision” doesn’t match what was actually done at the hearing. The applicant may decide to withdraw the application and pull out of the hearing to avoid the controversy. If not, the Board of Appeal will be forced to address the issue one way or the other at the Dec. 19th hearing.
BY THE WAY: Even if the applicant for the electronic billboard at 88-94 Lincoln pulls out of the hearing on December 19th, the hearing for the 64 Lincoln Street billboard will still go forward and that is an important agenda item, too. We should send a message that Brighton does not welcome the visual pollution of billboards and insist that the principles of the Zoning Code be enforced.
Joanne D’Alcomo
Elizabeth Breadon
Sent from my iPad
--
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<Billboard94LincolnformalOpenMeetingLawComplaint.pdf>