In Dorchester, a neighborhood full of three deckers, new three decker opposed because of flat roof

We pay people for this nonsense?

Under what theory of government does the ZBA, whose enabling legislation gives it the power to regulate things like usage and square footage, have the right to get involved in what a building outside of a historic district looks like?

Your headline says Dorchester, the link says 34 Dorchester Street (that's South Boston), I clicked on the link and it goes to Dorset Street in Dorchester. Odd goings on!

nothing really classes up the joint like some more of that crappy chain link fence in the front yard.

The Bellflower Apartments across the street replaced many of the buildings that burned in the 1964 Bellflower Street fire, so I wondered if 34 Dorset had also been destroyed. If I'm looking at this correctly, it was actually already a vacant lot back then. The map shows a gap between 32 and 38 here:

34 Dorset would be the first lot that's out of frame on the left, here:

Pics via city archive

If this gets built before 951-959 Dot Ave (same developer), I'll be pissed.

3 family forbidden, lot area insufficient, lot width insufficient, lot frontage insufficient, floor ratio excessive, building height excessive, side yard insufficient, rear yard insufficient, off street parking insufficient.

Too tall, too wide, too long, too close to the street, too close to houses that have been there for 50+ years...ZERO off street parking for three 3 bedroom condos on a street w/no street parking because *The Largest* on the street is a four 4 bedroom, two 3 bedroom frat house

What the hell is the point of having zoning code if some scumbag with money can ignore all of them and still get approval?!

And for the record Adam, there isn't a *single three decker* on Dorset st.

Looking forward to seeing Mr. Sarbaugh around the neighborhood...