Hey, there! Log in / Register

Court puts kibosh on plans to add floors to two-family house in Chinatown over concerns it could damage the neighboring building

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that the Boston Zoning Board of Appeal erred in granting approval to plans by the owners of a 2 1/2-story, two-family house at 9 Johnny Ct. in Chinatown to add two more floors and convert the building to five units, because the owner of the neighboring 7 Johnny Ct. raised legitimate concerns the work could damage their building.

The proposed expansion required a conditional permit because both buildings sit on wooden pilings and in a "groundwater conservation overlay district," where special requirements mean expansion projects need systems to ensure rainwater is discharged into the ground to keep the pilings wet - and so free of the organisms that would otherwise rot the pilings. The 9 Johnny Ct. work satisfied this requirement, but at issue was the potential new stresses on 7 Johnny Ct., with which the building shares a common "party" wall.

The zoning board approved the work in March, 2019 at a brief hearing. The owners of the neighboring building appealed and on Dec. 22, 2021, a Suffolk Superior Court judge vacated the board approval. The owner of 9 Johnny Ct. then appealed that ruling.

The appeals court said it agreed with the superior court judge's conclusions:

Based on expert testimony, the judge concluded that "there's a real risk of structural damage to 7 Johnny Court if two stories are added to 9 Johnny Court." The judge explained that "[t]he additional stories would increase the load of the structure and this load would be distributed out to the party wall that [9 Johnny Court] shares with 7 Johnny Court." The judge further concluded that "[s]ince there was already evidence of settlement of the row houses as they currently exist, the risk that such damage could occur if two additional stories were added to 9 Johnny Court is more than just speculative. It is quite likely." Moreover, the judge found that adding two stories to 9 Johnny Court would cause rain and snow to accumulate in greater amounts on the roof of 7 Johnny Court and such "accumulation could cause water issues inside that row house, depending on how watertight it was, and it could put pressure on the area where 7 Johnny Court's roof meets the wall that would be constructed at 9 Johnny Court for the additional stories." The judge also found that there could be flooding into the basement of 7 Johnny Court.

Watch the zoning hearing at which the project was approved:

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling90.26 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

is very difficult. The only variance allowed is for financial hardship. If more people had the knowledge or money for a lawyer, developers would not get away with more than half the stuff Zoning allows.

up
Voting closed 1

Conditional permit, which doesn't require an applicant to show "hardship," just that they met certain basic requirements. In this case, that was that the building would let rainwater filter into the ground. If you watch the hearing, they didn't even let anybody testify on the proposal, they just asked the Groundwater Trust, which monitors this unique Boston Proper condition (since so many building sit on wooden pilings) if it was OK with the proposal.

I didn't get into it, but if you read the court decision, one of the defenses raised by the guy who got the approval was that he shouldn't even need a conditional permit, since what he wanted to do would have been "of right" if the building wasn't in the groundwater zone. The court rejected that argument.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, a financial hardship is not grounds for a variance in Boston. The hardship has to relate to the land itself. However, you are correct that it is almost impossible to defend the variances the ZBA grants if they are appealed to Superior Court. You are also correct that most people don't have the resources to appeal. Ironically enough, the developers are represented by the City (in addition to their own lawyers, if they wish) so it is a double whammy for the abutters. In most cities and towns, it is just the opposite. Variance requests are usually denied because a variance is supposed to be hard to get, not given out freely as they are in Boston. In other cities and towns, if a developer wants to appeal, it is at their own expense.

up
Voting closed 1

I can’t imagine though, what this cost the owners of 7 Johnny Court just to protect their modest property.
Johnny Court is one of the last vestiges of old Chinatown, old Boston that is still intact. Leave it be.

up
Voting closed 1

Many neighbors were there to testify against the variance but there was no opportunity to speak. Chinatown residents are asking for smaller scale zoning to protect these row house streets and also discourage extreme real estate speculation.

We need to protect homes, not greed! This owner used the building as a short term rental, then has let it sit empty and neglected, with the front door wide open in all weather, behind a metal gate, for four or five years now,

up
Voting closed 1

I watched that building too. It’s a tried and true strategy for the eviction for profit mega business.

Some cities are enacting regulations to combat this. Could still happen here but not soon enough for many endangered neighborhoods.

up
Voting closed 0

Looks like they should be planting trees and grass instead.

up
Voting closed 1

There is no water reaching those pilings anymore. Between the 93's tunnels, the Pike and all the new deep foundations for the larger new buildings around it, those pilings are bone dry and crumbling. Those buildings will all have structural foundation issues if they don't already. Each will be condemned or bought up by somebody with the cash to save them. This preservation war was lost 50 years ago when the Pike went through, but people don't face facts.

up
Voting closed 1

up
Voting closed 1

The Boston Ground water Trust was established to test and maintain ground water levels of those buildings built on filled land that was water space in the past. While their major investment is around the Back Bay they have interests beyond that. Along with monitoring the water levels (moisture actually) they also maintain dozens (hundreds?) of water injection sites to maintain those levels to preserve building stability where modern construction has cut off the natural source.

up
Voting closed 1

I am surprised as one of the last 100 remaining brick Federal-style row house that the historical commission wasn't called in... To see just how many have been lost,look at these maps and look for near by Pine Street. Why are the celebrated in the Back Bay and destroyed in Chinatown?
https://www.chinatownatlas.org/maps/

Or the Chinatown Community Land Trust (CCLT).. Which has been has unsuccessful in buying row houses to preserve the community’s cultural legacy as well as provide low-income housing units as part of their mission.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/02/21/affordable-housing-real-estate-mone...

Or the Chinatown Stabilization Volunteer Committee... a volunteer group raising awareness of the row houses’ cultural and political history. https://cpaboston.org/en/programs/chinatown-stabilization-campaign

More on how these row houses are being turned over (not nice at all)
https://www.wgbh.org/news/2016/05/10/local-news/chinatowns-poorest-live-...

up
Voting closed 0