Cambridge BZA grants appeal for Buckingham Brown & Nichols, finds 2020 educational-use variance not lapsed

The Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4–1 on Feb. 27 to grant an appeal by Buckingham Brown & Nichols (BBN), concluding the school’s 2020 use variance for educational uses at 30 Jerry's Landing had not lapsed under the lapse provision cited at 'chapter 48 section 10.'

Foley Hoag attorney Ted Heuer, representing BBN, told the board the variance was recorded and “within days” BBN began using the property to store classroom furniture and to stage educational activities that, he said, were necessitated by COVID‑19 safety requirements. Heuer argued the activities constituted evidence of exercise of the variance within the one‑year lapse period and cited a state appeals‑court opinion (the "Green" case) that recognizes non‑construction indicia of use: “evidence of use within 1 year of the issuance of the variance may be sufficient to exercise such a variance.”

Board members pressed the applicant for specifics. Heuer and the applicant described outdoor English and photography classes, theater rehearsals and trustee meetings on the parcel during fall 2020 and the following months; Heuer also said the school stored landscaping and snow‑removal equipment on the site. The transcript records a neighbor, Catherine Gardner, calling attention to a map/address discrepancy and stating the property is historically recorded as “30 Gary’s Landing,” a point the board noted into the record.

After discussion, Chair Jim Monteverdi moved to grant relief under the relevant Cambridge zoning provisions for the appeal. Roll‑call voice votes recorded Zaria Miranda, Virginia Keesler, Daniel Hidalgo and Steven Ng in favor and Chair Monteverdi opposed; the board announced that the appeal was granted 4–1. The board’s action restored the petitioner’s assertion of the variance’s validity for purposes of the state lapse provision; the Building Commissioner’s letter (dated 11/18/2024) that noted no certificate of occupancy had been filed remained in the administrative record and the board treated the municipal C.O. requirement as a distinct administrative step that does not itself determine lapse under the state standard described by counsel.

Applicant counsel asked whether the 20‑day appeal period under '48 section 15' applies and requested the BZA continue the related variance/permit proceeding so the applicant could withdraw the variance application if no appeal were filed. The board agreed to continue the separate variance matter (case BZA1148744, 30 Jerry's Landing) to May 8, 2025, with conditions: corrected posting to show the new hearing date and time, a signed waiver of certain statutory notification requirements returned to the Inspectional Services Department within the deadline the board set, and a deadline for any new file submissions the Monday before the continued meeting.

The board record shows the decision was procedural and limited to the appeal before the BZA; any further permitting or certificate of occupancy remains subject to municipal permitting processes.