Board rejects six-condo building overlooking the Orange Line in JP as too dense

"I'm all about density near transit, but it would be nice to have some housing that's more affordable"

You get that by building more.

The board is not legally authorized to grant variances unless the request for a variance satisfies the test of Chapter 40A of the Mass. General Laws. The board is stepping way outside of its legal authority when it substitutes its own judgment as to whether or not the project is a good idea, for what the law allows.

If you think that the zoning rules are too strict and that they should be loosened in order to promote more housing and more affordable housing (which is a position with which I happen to agree) then the solution is to change the zoning rules, not for the Board to hand out variances like Halloween candy.

The system in which every project requires a variance leads directly to a kind of soviet-level corruption in which everything is illegal unless you are friends with an official.

With that said, it's not immediately obvious to me that a zoning code under which many existing buildings could not be built is necessarily wrong. We're allowed to change our minds about density and to decide that we don't want future development to follow past patterns. Often, zoning laws and building codes exist to remedy past wrongs. For example, early in the 20th century, laws were passed requiring that each bedroom in an an apartment have a window -- previously, tenement buildings were warrens of unventilated rooms. Entire neighborhoods of existing buildings were nonconforming to the new laws. That didn't make the new laws wrong; the new laws said, "wow those buildings were a bad idea, let's not do that any more."

Right, well once you have to go in front of the neighbors for one variance, it makes sense to try to make it worth your time.

They are only allowed to make exceptions in very limited cases; they have a history of grossly overstepping their authority. Reining this in, which a couple of city councilors are trying to do, unfortunately creates, over the short term, equity issues. “I should be allowed to get away with it because you let Tom, Dick, and Sally get away with it.” — the fact is that the board was wrong to grant variances to Tom, Dick, and Sally but you can’t reasonably expect Tom, Dick, and Sally to tear down their houses, so stopping the abuse creates a situation in which new applicants don’t get as sweet a deal as prior ones did. There’s no perfectly fair and equitable way out of it.

The rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they aren’t secret anywhere. When you buy property, you know what you can and can’t do with it, and you know what your neighbors can and can’t do with theirs. The problems arise when someone wants a variance because they’re special rather than because they qualify for one, or, conversely, where someone, also because he’s special, objects to a neighbor doing something the neighbor is allowed to do by right.

I have amazingly little sympathy for someone who buys a property that, due to environmental, zoning, or historical preservation restrictions has limited development potential, at a price that reflects that limited development potential, who then tries to create a huge windfall profit by seeking an exception to the rules, and who subsequently whines about “takings” or “impositions on his rights” when the request for exception doesn’t go through.

Continuing your analogy, this board is like a building inspector who personally thinks the building code is too strict about electric wire sizes and who routinely signs off on buildings that are not up to code, except when he doesn’t.