Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2004

Home

Page 4 -- April 25, 2004 Zoning Code -- RedeveloPment authority allows size deviations in new building Finds a smaller one wouM be financially unviable Citation: Christensen v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 02-P-112! (2004) MASSACHUSETTS (03/15/04) -- Rose Associates Inc. wanted to develop a 12-story office building in the Leather District neighborhood. Consequently, it sought the approval of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. The authority approved the application~ allowing Rose several deviations from the zoning code so it could build a building substantially larger than the zoning code allowed. Christensen, a neighboring property owner, sued the authority. The court ruled in the authority's favor. Christensen appealed, arguing the authority's approval was an illegal vio- lation of the zoning code. DECISION: 'Affirmed. The available evidence and experience of the authority in redevelopment matters in Boston permitted the authority to f'md ~anting the'deviations would not substantially derogate from the intent or purposes of the zoning code. The zoning code's goals for the Leather District were preservation,-the development of m_Lxed uses, and compatibility with eMsting buildings. The proposed development was for commercial office space, a permis~ sible use. The authority determined the project incorporated many architec- tural elements of the Leather District and was "sympathetic" to the district. It also determined the building would provide a good size transition between one neighborhood with lower buildings and another with much higher ones. The primary deviation was the scale of the building. The authority be- heved a smaller building would be ~nanciaily nonviable without government assistance. Thus, the authority was justified in allowing the deviations from the zoning code to assist in the redevelopment of the area. see also: Tierney v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of Kansas City, 742 S.W. 2d 146 (1987). 'see also: Benevolent & Protective Order Of Elks, Lodge No. 65 v. Planning Board of Lawrence, 531 N.E. 2d 1233 (J988). Zoning Code ~ Code includes 35-foot height restriction Landowner claims restriction violates constitutional rights Citariom' Hat,kerr v. Charter Township of Pete Marquette, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 244781 (2004) M~[CHIGAN (03/09/04) -- Hackert wanted to build a residence on his prop~ err7. However, the proposed residence would be over 35 feet in height. 11o © 2004 Ouintan PuJ~lishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibiled. For more information ,oiease call (617) 542-0048.