North End resident sues to try to block hotel on Cross Street

By adamg on Thu, 10/20/2022 - 4:00pm

A North End resident who says her view would be blocked by a wall just a few feet from her windows today sued to block the construction of a five-story, 134-room hotel along Cross Street on the Greenway edge of the neighborhood.

Mary Beth Sweeney's suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, asks a judge to "annul" the Zoning Board of Appeal's August 23 vote to approve 6M Development's proposal to replace some long vacant storefronts with a boutique hotel with no on-site parking.

Sweeney argues the board granted several variances needed for the project without substantiating the "hardships" required for allowing exceptions to the street's zoning. The complain also argues the board thwarted the public by refusing to let more than five residents make their case against the hotel. And, the complaint continues, while 6M tried to make it sound only she and other residents of her Stillman Street building were opposed, in fact, large numbers of North End residents opposed the project because of the traffic, congestion and other issues they say the building would cause.

Sweeney's suit names all the members of the zoning board at the time of the decision, including then Chairwoman Christine Araujo, even though Araujo cast the lone no vote.

Complete complaint (1.1M PDF).

Watch the zoning-board hearing:

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

You could change the address and the parties

By anon on Thu, 10/20/2022 - 5:14pm.

and the complaint would describe the vast majority of decisions by the Boston ZBA for at least the last 10 years. The problem is that the SJC and the Appeals Court have so narrowly defined standing, that it is nearly impossible for anyone other than a direct abutter to seek judicial relief. The ZBA in a majority of its hearings and decisions, has failed to meet the requirements of the Enabling Act or the Zoning Code. The BPDA is well aware of the legal environment, and regularly weaponizes Article 80 to the detriment of neighborhoods and the City.

Seriously?

By SwirlyGrrl on Sat, 10/22/2022 - 1:56pm.

The problem is that the SJC and the Appeals Court have so narrowly defined standing, that it is nearly impossible for anyone other than a direct abutter to seek judicial relief.

I take it that you have never lived outside of Boston, Hudson Valley NY or California.

This isn't a problem. It is a welcome relief from extreme NIMBYism and "community organization" shakedowns for trinkets and bribes for everything. Remember how Whole Foods was expected to provide a full time staffer for that loser in JP because he thought he could shake them down for it?

Why is it their business how the land is used beyond what the process allows them to say? You don't have a right to get your way just because something is happening near you and have exhausted the avenues for nonsense whining and demands.

Most sane places allow for input at earlier stages, but shut down the nonsense from that person who just moved in from California or Boston and thinks that they get veto power as ground is being broken. The above mentioned places have serious housing issues because they allow every person who thinks they have something to say to block everything up to the last minute, and this is destroying cities far more rapidly than just saying no to tantrums.

Comment deleted

By adamg on Thu, 10/20/2022 - 10:18pm.

If you're going to say something derogatory about somebody by linking to something, you need to make sure what you're linking to is actually about the person in question and not something about another person with the same name.

Suck it up

By johnmcboston on Sun, 10/23/2022 - 10:54pm.

We're in a city. Replacing a 1 story building with a 5 story building is going to happen, whether it's a hotel or residence or more lab space.