Hey, there! Log in / Register
Some Savin Hill Avenue residents sue to block plan to enlarge single-family home into three condos
By adamg on Tue, 01/30/2024 - 12:38pm
Rendering of proposed new triplex on Savin Hill Avenue by Nicholas Landry, DRT.
Three residents of Savin Hill Avenue near Playstead Road in Dorchester yesterday sued the Zoning Board of Appeal and the owners of what is now a single family home at 164 Savin Hill Ave. over plans to enlarge it into three condos.
In their suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Jonathan Crowell, Colleen Coffey and Matthew Patton are seeking a preliminary injunction by Pauline King and her son Tony to start any work on the project and, ultimately, a ruling by a judge to "annul" or throw out, the zoning board's Jan. 10 approval - plus the awarding of damages and attorney's fees.
The three charge the project will "have a direct negative impact" on their properties by "decreasing the available parking, increasing traffic and congestion, decreasing pedestrian safety, and increasing density beyond what the neighborhood is zoned for" and that the zoning board should be ashamed of itself for approving variances for a project on land that doesn't have any particular hardships to warrant overriding the lot's zoning.
The zoning of the property, they say, allowed the Kings the "reasonable use" of their property without variances - specifically, the zoning allows the family to increase the size of their house to a two-family building, without needing to eliminate "almost all open space on the property," let alone put in an underground garage.
Simply being able to sell each condo for $1.2 million, which they allege the Kings plan to do, is no reason to grant variances, they say.
The neighbors allege the new units will only make Savin Hill Avenue even more dangerous than it already is - Patton and Coffey say they have three children under 5 - and that unlike the Kings' new triplex, their homes have no off-street parking, so they are being disadvantaged because the new building's occupants will park on the street even with the parking garage.
Watch the hearing:
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete complaint | 572.36 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
This is shameful
OMG one house is adding 2 more units that MIGHT add a possibility of six people total. These people are out of their mind.
And OMG 'but cars, but parking" is the excuse every time. (and is probably the sole real reason to file a lawsuit)
Wake up people. We're in a housing crisis. I think all variances should be waived to get more housing built.
Its clear these people don't want this because of their property values and *gasp* loss of parking.
A quick look on Google Maps shows the 4 houses on playstead all show DRIVEWAYS so not sure what these people are complaining about.. other than "my property values"
This is a bunch of rich people who don't want more people living near them and are fighting it tooth and nail.
We need MORE housing like this, not less. Especially since this location is less than 5m from the Savin Hill T Station.
At risk of derailing this
At risk of derailing this conversation, you nailed it with "More housing, not less, Especially since the locaiton is less than 5m from the Savin Hill T Station"
What is considered a housing crisis is at its root a lack of housing in desirable locations, at a price that people can afford.
There is plenty of housing in this country but it is not in places that people want to live and to be able to work. Google abandoned neighborhoods and there are plenty of places where houses and developments are sitting empty, falling apart, that could be used to house people.
But in reference to your statement, they are not near public transit and business, or in rural states and locations that people want to live.
As for solutions, economics shows that strictly building more housing in highly desisred locations, does not guarentee that those houses will be affordable, without government intervention. The demand is still too high. That is even more accute with high interest rates where borrowing is much more expensive for mortgage holders and developers alike. Developers will be less inclined to build affordable housing if the cost of building and borrowing to build is higher than the profit of the project.
So I should live in a
So I should live in a graffitied house that has been vacant for years in Detroit or St. Louis, where I know no one? The government should intervene. We should not be making a profit on housing. Everyone could be housed if we took some money away from defense.
That’s a disingenuous
That’s a disingenuous argument. I did not say people should live in run down houses; they could be repaired and brought up to code for less than building new. And you proved my point by saying you do not want to live in locations where you don’t know anyone. Go out and meet new people.
Building houses not for profit, led by government is a utopian goal, it has been tried before with poor results.
Take the cost of building a house, raw materials, labor, equipment, etc.
Do you plan to pay labor minimum wage, or higher union wages? Who pays to buy or rent a digger to build a foundation? Is that cost amortized over multiple projects? Without profit, the developer would not be able to purchase equipement. These all increase the cost of the build, not guaranteeing the final cost would be affordable.
As an industry without profit what incentive is for anyone to build housing, compared to other types of business. Or what would probably happen is that profit would be disguised as cost of business.
.
With government intervention, what you will end up with is government-built projects / soviet style concrete block housing. Lowest cost labor, materials, and appeal.
Would you move to Detroit or
Would you move to Detroit or St Louis? I have lived in this area ALL MY LIFE. My parents lived here and my grandparents lived here. I would love to move to Denver or Tours, France, since my husband is a French citizen, but that takes money, which does not grow on trees.
Have you noticed that there are lot of cheaply made apartments and condos here? Profit does not equal quality. There was just a post about residents suing a developer for shoddily made condos. They passed inspection but now 3 years on, the shoddily made apartments are apparent.
Again, address what I wrote.
Again, address what I wrote. I did not say that profit equals quality. Often more profit is the result of the developer cutting corners. But there are legal and reputational reprocussions for a developer who does not consistantly deliver. If contracts were not followed there could be a tort arguement for the victim.
I understand you are making a personal analogy to a larger societial issue. In the end it is a matter of choice. You choose to live here based on a number of factors. There is nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I have lived in 5 different states because my father chased jobs around New England and the Midwest. It was not easy growing up and had many social and monetary impacts. But that too was a choice, and for our family it was the right one.
So back to my original argument, the housing crisis is a matter of a lack of housing in desirable locations at a price people can afford.
I do not need to live in
I do not need to live in downtown Boston. The prices are extremely high all over eastern Massachusetts. When an apartment in Bridgewater is 2400 for a 2 bedroom, there is something wrong. There are costs of moving farther away from the city. I work in the Back Bay so if I move to say New Bedford, the cost of the commuter rail pass goes up several hundred dollars and the cost for parking at the station goes up too. Any money I really save, will go into commuting costs.
Right now, I rent a room in Norwood.
Price controls don't work
Do you understand when the government builds housing, they are just hiring a private developer who still gets paid a similar rate? People are still making a profit on housing.
More people would be housed if there was less restrictive zoning and permitting. Every time Boston adds on a well-intended stipulation (affordable units, local amenities, community review, etc) it just raises the overall cost of housing in the area and furthers the problems.
If you think we're in a housing crisis, it's entirely caused by government restrictions. Doubling down on restrictions only makes things worse.
The reason why people fight new construction is often for this very reason! They like their current neighbors/community and don't want to lose their loss of community they fear will come with new developments!
When I was homeless, I called
When I was homeless, I called Rosie's Place, I was told that I should move out of Massachusetts. since, I could not afford it. I qualified for no services. I was sleeping in my car.
One of the main drivers of the housing crisis, is single family zoning. Single family zoning must go.
Ahem
The main thing that they are not near is employment opportunities. At least not enough durable opportunities to make settling there worth it.
That's why you will find that these places are full of people on social security disability and little else.
Protecting your family's largest financial asset is shameful?
I think that there can be an honest discussion to be had about density and zoning--where it is appropriate and how much. But calling people shameful for protecting the value of their home?
The homes in question are assessed about $1M--that hardly makes someone rich as a homeowner in Boston these days--sadly that is the cost of a middle-class home if you are lucky enough to buy one. If a middle-class person saves up to buy a home--an asset that they will likely borrow against to put their kids through college, trade school, or start a business, an asset that is like something that they will depend on later in life to fund retirement or assisted living--why is it shameful if they want to protect it? These aren't absentee landlords or foreign investors snapping up condos they don't intend to live in--these are middle-class people and their primary residences.
If a group of speculators bet the 401ks or pensions of 1,000s of middle-class people and lost them--shouldn't those people be allowed legal recourse? The family home generally makes up the largest chunk of a middle-class or working-class family's finances and wealth--so people should just suck it up because you think they are "rich?"
The real problem housing problem we have in Boston is middle and working-class housing problem. The reason why the net worth of white people in Boston is (on average) $250K compared to $1 for people of color is home ownership. But developers only want to build luxury condos or luxury rentals ($3,000 for a one-bedroom). Homeownership has been the biggest way for people to move out of poverty and provide financial futures for their children and grandchildren--how is that shameful?
Personally, I don't think that the planned project is egregious and I would be inclined to support this kind of density--but they ain't building next to my house and it isn't risking my nest egg.
I would be a little less quick to cast dispersions when someone fears that someone is taking the bread of their families mouths.
Oh please
By that "logic" I should be suing Massport/FAA for changing the frequency of planes directly overhead, plus DOT for adding lanes to I-93, DCR for allowing coyotes to breed in the woods, and the MBTA for cancelling the express buses downtown, etc.
This isn't "protecting" anything but the egos and fragile grip on reality of the assholes who are suing and, probably, racism.
No need to get combative. The
No need to get combative. The above comment is a reasonable one. You just don’t agree with it.
Flawed Argument
Your statement doesn't consider variety of housing types. Yes, all things being equal, more supply of the same type of units would lower the value for existing homeowners. But that is not what is happening with infill development. A new unit type is being built. There will always be people who prefer detached single family housing. Building multi-unit housing won't relieve that demand, so those people will continue to bid up the price of existing housing stock. But for people who are fine with something else, that something else doesn't currently even exist, and therein lies the problem.
Essentially, yet again the
Essentially, yet again the lack of any kind of national or cultural safety net in the US means people are largely on their own to protect and hoard whatever meagre resources they can. If this country had pensions, universal healthcare, supports for families, etc, people would not feel so psychotically protective of their main asset. But when the biggest growth in the homeless population is coming from the elderly, and the government's response is a big old shrug about the failure of the 401k scam and the inability to save, then yes, people are going to make selfish, practical decisions favoring their own circumstances.
A kinder world would enable people to be kinder. Nobody can be blamed for looking out for themselves, because in this country, you are the ONLY one looking out for yourself. But commenters on uhub would rather fight about individual level responses to these societal pressures and whether it makes someone Good or Bad, and not step back and realize the whole system is corrupt and set up to encourage this behavior from people who would otherwise probably show a lot more grace to their (future) neighbors.
We have plenty of luxury over priced condos.
We need affordable housing.
This will not be affordable housing.
We need new housing at all
We need new housing at all levels! When something is scarce but desirable, only the very richest people can pay for it. Building lots and lots of housing near transit, even expensive housing, reduces competition for housing, which helps everyone, even the people who don't live in the expensive new housing.
For context here's a great video from the Sightline Institute that explains housing as a cruel game of musical chairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc
Yes, obviously, we will also need subsidized and public housing. And I get that "4 expensive condos" sure sounds like it's not helping. But remember, blocking this project means preserving a single, even-more-expensive, ultra-luxury house.
The two new households here
May well right now be renting a floor of a three-decker nearby.
They get a new house, they move out. The landlord then rents the floor of the three-decker to someone new.
Two people won't make a difference. But if we do this across the city and have 2000 people moving out of three deckers, rent goes down. Minneapolis reformed zoning, built a bunch of new housing, and rent decreased. Oh, and, homelessness has gone down. One of their regulations is to allow triplex housing on any lot, like this one, by right.
Almost like there are more people than houses, and if you build more houses, then there are fewer people competing for each house.
What provision, specifically
Which provision, specifcally, of Chapter 40A, do you think gave the ZBA the right to grant this exception to the zoning laws for this particular property?
Lawsuits are Standard Business in Building Projects
A MA housing developer friend told me that these lawsuits are an expected part of doing business. Locals often look to get paid off with a settlement under the threat of decreased quality of life and decreased housing prices.
The expsense of these legal actions is built into the development budget and timeframe.
Just another
Good reason to change the zoning so people can do things by right and not expect everything to require a variance.
A change in variance would
A change in variance would not necessarly stop the lawsuits. People would simply sue the developer directly and attempt to tie up the project in the courts until it is no longer profitable to complete the project.
The lawsuit would get dropped if a monetary settlement is offered.
What needs to be done
Ban these nuisance lawsuits as part of a zoning overhaul that bans single family zoning statewide.
I found it highly amusing that someone in PDX was organizing around a tall building going in as of right, so I asked them when they had moved there from the northeast or California (1.5 years ago ...). I then filled them in on how zoning in the area works, and why their little reactive shitfit was not going to get them anywhere like it would have where they came from. In Oregon, the land use planning is statewide, but local areas can organize to impact zoning where locals think it is not appropriate. But the zoning is not changed at the lot level - and people are not allowed to throw abutter tantrums because their neighbors are building things.
Other areas have tackled this. Boston can too. The public good must come before the private tantrums over OMG SOMEONE IS BUILDING SOMETHING AND NOBODY ASKED ME!!!!!
single family zoning
I dunno, is there really a housing shortage in rural North Adams? Would it not behoove the overall health of the state to encourage those who really want single family homes to consider moving to the exurbs or western mass, where there is ABUNDANT land and cheap housing, and very little infrastructure to support density? Wouldn't that maybe be a boon for those towns, to now have something on offer nobody can get in Boston, and attract more remote workers and other high-income people who aren't tied to a physical location?
Two tech professionals might consider moving out to the sticks, optimistic the quaint little downtown will soon get a starbucks, if that is their only option for getting a single family home when they want to have kids.
Nobody is going to move to Deerfield to live in a 2 bedroom apartment with no parking (but no transit, lol), people above and below them, that they could've otherwise rented in Waltham and had access to the amenities of the city.
The people are taking a play right
Out of the government’s playbook
These NIMBY brats and their
These NIMBY brats and their lawsuits make housing even more expensive than it already is. These people should be publicly shamed. What someone else does with their property is none of their business.
NIMBY
TL;DR version: NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY
I hope they win.
I hope they win.
I hope they lose
... and have to pay the cost of their frivolous lawsuit.
And I hope the legislature takes action to prevent this from happening again.
More housing, not less
Only works when it's the kind of housing I like.
Housing crisis
Just spouting off with no real forethought…
The building of ‘luxury’ condominiums does nothing to relieve the housing crisis.
Anyone who can afford these units are not and never will be in ‘crisis’.
How many thousands of privately-funded units are being built in Boston right this moment? My guess is 98% (low estimate) of them will not be bought by Boston residents in crisis. Wealthy citizens from all over the country will scoop up these units….
I don’t even remember what my point was, hopefully you get it though.
Supply and demand
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp
Boston is in the process of the Streets and Squares initiative
This would eliminate variances in dense urban downtown parts of Boston that have access to Transit. The mayor is pushing this hard currently, we will likely see it pass and then neighborhoods get a choice of which housing density option to apply before developers will descend on those neighborhoods. Cleary Square in Hyde Park as well as Roslindale square are first on the list to pilot these programs.
Just keep in mind we can't solve 50+ years of underbuilding housing in a few years.
https://www.bostonplans.org/planning/planning-initiatives/squares-streets
Good for the neighbors
and they will win or at least get something from the owners.
I can't imagine why we have a
I can't imagine why we have a chronic housing shortage.