Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Standing Boston Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant challenges Boston zoning variances and alleged municipal practice; board argues lack of standing
Summary
A Boston homeowner asked the Appeals Court to review zoning variances he says join a wider city practice converting single- and three-family lots to multifamily; the city and project counsel responded that he failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury and thus lacks standing.
An appellant challenging variances granted by the City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal told the Appeals Court that multiple variances approved across his block show a municipal practice that changes neighborhood density and gave him standing to appeal under the Boston zoning enabling statute.
The appellant (who presented his own argument to the panel) said the record included specific variances in exhibits and cited three audits (two internal and one by Suffolk University) showing municipal practice; he argued the incremental effect of 16 to 17 variances converting several lots to multifamily warranted judicial review and that the Boston code (c. 665) requires notice to "all persons affected."
Thomas Broom, counsel for the City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal, and counsel for a private project defendant urged the court to reject the appellant's pleading as conclusory. Broom relied on this court's prior rulings that treat presumption-of-standing rules under chapter 40A as applicable to Boston's enabling statute and argued the appellant failed to plead a particularized injury tied to his property. He cited Porter and Murrow decisions and briefing to say the court has already addressed similar standing questions.
Project counsel for the private defendant likewise argued the complaint lacked facts to show unique traffic, noise or privacy harms and noted the appellant lives three lots down across the street; counsel said the article of local zoning law limits relief to those with demonstrable, particularized injuries.
Justices questioned whether the appellant's pleaded harms were particularized to his property or instead general neighborhood concerns and whether the Boston-specific notice provisions create a different standing standard from state chapter 40A jurisprudence. The court took argument and will decide whether the appeal may proceed.
