Hey, there! Log in / Register
Brighton resident already fed up with the construction along nearby Birmingham Parkway sues to stop latest proposed apartment building
By adamg on Mon, 08/21/2023 - 9:53am
A resident of Lothrop Street in Brighton last week sued to stop construction of a proposed six-story apartment building on Leo Birmingham Parkway where the State Police had their temporary barracks.
In his lawsuit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Paul Adams charged the Zoning Board of Appeal had no business approving variances for Arx Urban's 38-unit apartment building because the site has nothing unusual about it or any other hardships that would warrant overriding its zoning. The building would also "interfere with Plaintiffs' privacy, increase density in the neighborhood, reduce air, reduce lighting and increase shadows on Plaintiffs' properties, decrease Plaintiffs' properties values, and decrease on-street parking," his lawsuit alleges.
Adams owns the houses at 9-11 and 7 Lothrop, the second of which, in an August, 2022 Google Streetview has a prominent sign out front warning construction crews working on City Realty's recently completed six-story condo building at 50 Leo Birmingham Parkway not to park there.
At the zoning board's hearing on the project on June 6, Adams said the property has been in his family for 45 years and that the new building is just too dense and that its 13 parking spaces are just too few and would lead to even more parking issues on his street.
In recent years, low-slung office and commercial buildings and parking lots along the parkway from Lincoln Street to Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road have been - or proposed to be - replaced with a series of residential buildings.
The Brighton-Allston Improvement Association voted against the proposal, saying the building was just too dense and that a building in a "green overlay" zoning district should have more green space. The Allston Civic Association split on the project, but group President Tony D'Isidoro told the board that he is concerned that while transit-oriented development is great, the issue is whether the T will - or even be able to - increase service in the area to handle all the new residents.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete complaint | 801.65 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What a piece of work
He owns TWO houses (assessed at a combined $2.5M+)...thinks he controls PUBLIC street parking...can sue to stand in the way of additional housing development...and use "increased density" in a city as a valid reason.
This motherfucker is why we can't have nice things...like affordable housing.
Hey, Paul. GFY.
Its like NIMBY Bingo here
All thats missing is a dog whistle comment about rat infestations.
Wait, "rat infestations" is
Wait, "rat infestations" is dog whistle? I thought it was just .... hating rats.
Fairly anecdotal from my experiences and on UHub
But I think its more about hating any and all development and find anything to throw at the wall that sticks in opposition.
https://www.universalhub.com/2019/rats-squicking-out-readville-residents...
https://www.universalhub.com/2021/newton-residents-come-grim-realization...
https://www.universalhub.com/2022/small-jewish-high-school-wins-approval...
https://www.universalhub.com/2023/citizen-complaint-nothing-stops-door-e...
"Reduce air"...
What is this, SPACEBALLS?
Dog Whistle has a pretty
Dog Whistle has a pretty specific meaning. This dude seems to just not want anybody else in the neighborhood, period, and "density" and "reduced parking" are explicitly complaints linked to that. Not wanting new neighbors as a concept isn't the same of not wanting new neighbors who meet a certain demographic, which is where a dog whistle would come in.
Hating rats is also a weird thing to call a dog whistle. Is the implication that there's a stereotype of a certain demographic that's especially prone to throwing their trash about and it causes rats? In terms of 'my complaints are actually about a specific color of new neighbor dog whistles, "Increased Crime" is usually the go to....
Like this guy is an ass but he can be an ass without taking some severe leaps of logic.
I mean we can split hairs on what a dog whistle is
So for me and the posts I linked above (again, anecdotal they are) they all contain some bits about developers/construction projects being the cause of rats And I remember public hearing comments about messy students/transients moving into the developments near Saint Es.
I can't recall any of the
I can't recall any of the countless lawsuits like this succeeding. I hope this one meets the same fate as the others. This guy's property appreciated in value for decades through no action of his own, and now maybe it's going down a tiny little bit (though honestly it's probably still going up) through no action of his own. That's life. Your property value is not, and should not be, the city's problem.
Try reading the Zoning Code, beginning with the Enabling Act
Obviously the BPDA and the ZBA think it's irrelevant, but the majority of Boston ZBA hearings fail to create a record supporting variances or even conditional use permits. Most people whose neighborhoods and quality of life are collateral damage, cannot afford to fight the rigged system.
Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Its not that they don't
Its not that they don't succeed. Its that 1. They are very expensive (months of filing, court dates, etc. and associated legal fees) to take all the way to the end and 2. The goal is very very rarely to actually stop the project. The goal is almost always a settlement of some sort. The trick is that to get to that point, you have to challenge the zoning variances...not just one, but all of them. You have to use legal language that has been established by precedent to have standing--parking, density, and shadows for example--whether or not those are your actual issues. "I want the developer to change a few of their designs" or "I want to make sure that you don't cut off my water and power during construction and you'll actually pay me if you do" might be the actual asks, but those don't have any legal weight.
Ever wonder why every suit like this sounds the same? Its because they have to be! Thats the law for you.
The settlement can be anything after the fact, but if the developer tells you, an abutting property owner, to pound sand when you make any requests, reasonable or not, this is the ONLY WAY TO GET THEM TO CHANGE THEIR PLAN. And no one does this for funsies, unless they like burning through hundreds of dollars an hour on legal fees.
wow
What a toolbag.
To go as far as to have signs made (like metal ones) to tell people not to park on a public street.
yeah go f yourself Paul. Don't like it, sell your property for a mint.. you know some developer would snatch it up in a heartbeat.
So tired of these self righteous car owners who think the spaces in front of their house are their property. You want your own parking spot, move to the burbs and have a driveway
Oh wait.. he *has* a 5 car driveway and garage.
yeah go f*ck yourself dude and with the high horse you rode in on.
Real zoning when?
This is a ridiculous lawsuit, but the City sets itself up for this by relying on variances to work around a zoning code that is horribly out-of-date.
Plenty of large cities have created thoughtful, progressive zoning codes that allow density (even, say, triplexes as-of-right citywide as in Minneapolis) and remove opportunities for time-consuming and expensive hearings -- and often litigation when someone doesn't get what they want.
Writing a zoning code is not a lost art.
The BAIA thinks "a building
The BAIA thinks "a building in a "green overlay" zoning district should have more green space." How do they feel about Adams ripping up all the greenery at 7 Lothrop? Compare 2022 Street View with 2019.
HA!
Pretty sure I looked at rooms at 9 Lothrop a couple of times. Wasn't for me. I'm being polite.