The Boston City Council will host a public hearing on Aug. 17 at 10 a.m. to hear how to reform the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please participate! Current problematic ZBA members will be reappointed for another term if we don’t challenge them now.
https://www.boston.gov/public-notices/15759691
A new ZBA is desperately needed, especially as some large projects are looming that will affect not just the North End, but East Boston, Roxbury, Charlestown, South Boston— all of Boston’s most vulnerable neighborhoods. The zoning laws which are designed to protect us are being overruled constantly by these self-dealing ZBA members, on behalf of developers, without regard to the local impact.
FOR EXAMPLE: Just a few steps down from the Nazzaro building is another historic structure, the St. Leonard’s Rectory (pictured above), which is being turned now into luxury condos. Whether or not you agree with us that the development underway there is full of problems, you should be alarmed at how this case was handled at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA’s behavior represents a wake up call for how willy-nilly development in Boston threatens to destroy the quality of life in our historic Boston neighborhoods.
It’s not just the North End that is in danger. Just walk around the Seaport to see what could have been a beautiful neighborhood—with the impressive Institute for Contemporary Art and the Courthouse buildings as anchors. Instead the Seaport is now a soul-less jumble of self-contained commercial properties, with no “there there” connecting residents who want to live in a real neighborhood.
Our own 14-month odyssey with the ZBA, culminating in a peremptory ZBA vote to approve this new condo development we opposed, is a perfect example of ZBA’s abuse of their powers. We were made to listen in silence as the developer, and his so-called “abutters” presented mistruths. No opposing abutters were allowed to present any testimony at all at the hearing, even though they had registered in advance to do so.
We actually hoped for a good condo conversion in this historic building. But Epsilon’s was not the right design: we challenged it based on problems with fire and structural safety, of having only one staircase and no elevator for five stories of condos, the complete lack of parking or even a delivery cutout, a new fifth story added to a structurally uncertain building which sits on a hollow warren of underground passages, and other problems. Unfortunately, the ZBA is set up only to be responsive to developers.
Not a word was allowed to be said on Jan. 12 about these serious issues or the consistent “no” votes in the North End’s elected bodies against this proposal. There was no roll call ZBA vote on Jan. 12, only an inaudible voice vote gaveled forward by the chair in favor of the developer, after a lopsided “hearing” of less than 12 minutes. The outcome clearly was decided behind closed doors, in advance.
The ZBA did not even try to follow its own legal procedures, or the city’s own stated process of neighborhood consultation. Regardless of whether you agree with us about the troubling condo conversion at 14 N Bennet St., you should be angry about how your city officials are handling such cases.
Here are some of the issues raised by our experience:
- There is no provision for opponents to seek or oppose any delay in the ZBA actions. Developer Epsilon had received five delays of this case over a year’s time, which abutters never knew about in advance. We showed up in person to oppose, in February 2020 and online four more times after that, only to be dismissed to a new date.
- Our two elected community groups’ consistent votes against this proposal, in all of its forms, were not even considered by the ZBA. Our detailed letters and advance written testimony about safety and other issues were never mentioned during the hearing, and none of the registered abutters opposing the variances was allowed to speak at all!
- The developers had refused even to negotiate with abutters for a full year, but the ZBA chair gave them what they wanted anyway, saying untruthfully at the hearing that the developer’s design was responsive to abutters’ concerns!
- The ZBA written ruling in favor of the developer said there had been five discussions at the ZBA about the case! Not even one was held. In every instance the issue was simply cancelled by the developers that day, without any warning to the opponents who had taken time off from work to show up.
- Even though there were other material misstatements in the ZBA ruling, we were advised by lawyers that we couldn’t appeal in court without expecting to pay $30,000 at a minimum, and almost certainly much more. How are ordinary Boston taxpayers supposed to participate in such a system? Unlike in a court of law, failure to follow due process at the ZBA and important factual errors in their rulings, are not promising grounds for appeal, our lawyer said.
Our reform proposals:
- There should be an immediate change in the leadership and membership of the ZBA. The chair’s behavior is a disgrace. She has been serving with disdain for the citizens of Boston, for decades. We need to have community members represented on this board, as well as professionals with historic preservation and city planning backgrounds.
- There should be an appeals process free of charge to real abutters that allows review, during a reasonable period of time, with established criteria for allowing such an appeal. The appeals should be heard by an independent panel of reviewers with community as well as development backgrounds. The ZBA decision should be reversed if this city appeals panel concludes the ZBA did not follow the law or misrepresented the central facts of the case.
- Developers should not be privileged in this process as they are now, above the residents and property owners whom the zoning laws are designed to protect. If there is a hearing, abutters must be seen as well as heard. There should be no limit of three speakers “for each side.” We had a whole roomful of opponents during our five postponed hearings, and their presence had no more weight than the three witnesses lined up by the developer. We had more than 140 people who signed our petitions and sent letters. None of that mattered.
- Letters and testimony sent to the ZBA should be vetted for legitimacy! In our case, a man was paid by the developer to get abutter “signatures” and he signed up people who live nowhere near the property in question. The ZBA supported its ruling with these identical “letters” supporting the developer, from people who are not genuine abutters.
- Enforce a transparent process of vetting, nominating and electing the ZBA members who are supposed to be independent of the developers and political officials. Ensure than ZBA members are not just the friends of the Mayor, or financially tied to developers. The zoning law specifically says that variances should not be granted simply to maximize developer profits. But that is exactly what we have today.
Recent Comments