The Zoning Board of Appeal this week rejected plans for a new basement at a West Canton Street manse now on sale for $6.9 million because the developer basically dug it out and finished it even though he didn't have approval.
The board and the mayor's office both said they're willing to overlook such things with new property owners and consider a back-dated approval, especially given the chaotic situation this summer with construction and the pandemic, but they said Peter McLoughlin is an experienced Boston developer and should have known better than to build something he didn't have permission for as part of a gut rehab of the 1890 structure.
At a hearing on Tuesday, McLoughlin's attorney, pleaded extenuating circumstances: He said McLoughlin had approval to install a new groundwater-recharge system - to ensure rainwater would be pumped into the ground to protect nearby foundations - but stopped work on that when Mayor Walsh ordered a halt to construction work in March due to Covid-19.
During a July inspection, an ISD inspector said McLoughlin needed to do some emergency work to shore up the building and the developer decided it made sense to simply finish the planned basement work - meant for a home office and gym - as part of that work.
The problem is that a completed basement would make the building denser than allowed under the street's zoning, which would require board approval, which McLoughlin did not have. LaCasse said McLoughlin has since filled in the basement so it can't be used at present.
Faisa Sharif of the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, however, urged the board to reject the request because of the way the basement was built. She said McLoughlin is hardly some homeowner new to Boston who may have inherited a situation that he was unaware of.
"In this case, it's very clear that this was an experienced developer that had gone before ISD to seek something they knew required zoning relief and decided to build already," she said.
The board then voted to reject the required "relief" the basement would need. The board did, however, approve McLoughlin's request to add a hatch to the roof to allow access to the new roof deck he's put on top of the house. The roof deck itself is allowed under the street's zoning, but the hatch needed board approval.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Why does this rule even exist
By anon
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 12:26pm
Why does this rule even exist? Why do we need to prohibit density that does not increase a building's height or footprint?
It's stuff like this that drives up housing prices, and encourages suburban sprawl. Yes, I know a $6.9 million house is not exactly affordable. But in general, the more obstacles you throw in the way of expanding the housing supply, the more you tip things towards super high-end projects built by developers who have the money to wade through the bureaucracy.
Spurious argument
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 2:53pm
Allowing this guy to build his illegal basement in no way expands the housing supply
Nor does it
By ChrisInEastie
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 2:59pm
realistically make a neighborhood more dense.
Well, the law they violated
By anon
Fri, 11/20/2020 - 11:21am
Well, the law they violated was creating more living space. It’s a separate issue if that living space is just another room for a super-rich person, or an extra unit. But if we ban the extra space, both situations couldn’t happen.
How
By J.R. Dobbs
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 1:33pm
do you keep someone out of their own basement?
Short of filling it in, I can only think maybe they would make you wall it off and don't approve a stairwell.
But then you move in. And get to work on a secret laboratory with a hidden hatch in the floor activated by a book or candlestick or something like that.
They did fill it in
By adamg
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 2:16pm
Sorry if I didn't include that in the original post, but I was thinking it :-). But I imagine unfilling it wouldn't be nearly as much work as excavating the space to begin with.
Developer tried to pull a fast one.
By Lee
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 2:03pm
And got caught. Tough luck.
Don't Look in the Basement
By anon
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 4:14pm
Denizens of the VFW and Neponset Drive In would know better. The 70's were so much more fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys27ZxU3M3g
So now what, the developer
By Refugee
Thu, 11/19/2020 - 4:27pm
So now what, the developer rips it out, or does the developer pay a fine and reapply for a variance?
Not quite sure how this increases density....
By BillyRez
Fri, 11/20/2020 - 9:28am
This is a single family home. The intent of the code needs to be looked at here. I understand if it’s an additional studio apartment or something, but, again, not quite sure how building within an existing envelope increases neighborhood density. And yes, I understand he needed a variance first.
The density issue
By adamg
Fri, 11/20/2020 - 11:18pm
More specifically, the extra space would increase the building's floor area ratio above that allowed under the lot's zoning, i.e., make the building denser than allowed), which is what triggered the need for a variance. My apologies if my attempt to come up with an alternative for "floor area ratio" made things less clear.
Right out of a Kafka novel.
By anon
Fri, 11/20/2020 - 7:43am
Right out of a Kafka novel.
You get the zoning rules you
By anon
Fri, 11/20/2020 - 7:46am
You get the zoning rules you deserve.
Most of the South End is
By cden4
Fri, 11/20/2020 - 10:19am
Most of the South End is not legal by current zoning. I guarantee that by making the basement occupiable space, the building is no more dense than most of its neighbors.
I have no problem asking people to get permits for work to be done, but the zoning code as a whole needs an overhaul, if not simply to make what's currently built legal, and to make building more of the same legal as well.
Add comment