PHOTO: This photo, taken by City Councilor John Oliver, shows a new building (left) taller than abutting properties, which city councilors say was not part of the property site plan. Courtesy Photo
What happens when a project comes out looking a little differently from what was approved? What happens if the City Council is at odds over the project with the Planning Department and building inspector? Newton is about to find out.
The three Ward 1 city councilors—Maria Greenberg, Alison Leary and John Oliver—are planning to file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals over the construction of two duplexes on Clinton Street in Nonantum that many say has strayed from its original approved plan.
Basically, the City Council approved a plan based on designs, the plan actually included a part about changing the property grade, and the building inspector signed off on the finished project because it technically complies with the plan (but not the plan’s drawings).
It’s a mess. And now the three councilors want the ZBA to sort it out for the community.
Background
In the spring of 2023, the council’s Land Use Committee reviewed the project, located at 20 Clinton St., and held multiple community meetings with the property owner, an attorney and an architect.
The property owner provided required images—including 3-dimensional computer images—of what the project would look like once completed. Those designs showed the project as having the same land grade as the abutting properties.
“It was what the Ward 1 councilors, members of the Land Use Committee and the neighbors expected,” Councilor Maria Greenberg said.
A few months ago, the abutters asked Greenberg and Councilor Alison Leary to visit the property, over concerns that the project was bigger than approved.
“To our surprise. a significant increase in grade change was made to the property, resulting in increased height of the buildings,” Greenberg continued.
As it turns out, the grade changes were in the site plan but were not depicted in the drawings and was never discussed by the property owner or the architect at the meetings, Greenberg said.
“This missed information would have certainly changed our deliberations and discussions about the project,” Greenberg said. “At the time, the Land Use Committee and the City Council’s unanimous approval of the project was based on missing and inaccurate project information. And now the neighborhood is living with a project that no one expected.”
Complicating things further, the city’s building inspector has written a statement for the City Council saying the project has complied with what was approved (not what was in the designs presented with the plan).
“We may have erred because we were mis-advised, but I’m not sure we have successful appeal for anything he has done,” Councilor Lisle Baker, who said he understood the frustration but voted against filing the appeal, said. “And that’s what our opportunity is. We can only appeal—as I read the statute—a decision of the building inspector… to the ZBA for an error that he has made.”
‘Collective intent’
What can the Zoning Board of Appeals do at this point?
Leary, who requested the appeal along with Greenberg and Councilor John Oliver, said they wanted the matter looked at by an independent entity, because they hadn’t been getting clear answers from the city about what happened and what could be done now.
“We were not shown the correct plans in context. We were given misleading photos, and I feel like the city staff has sort of coalesced around sticking to that point, and they’re unmoved by anything else.”
Oliver showed a photo he had taken of the project from Clinton Street, showing a noticeable height difference between the property and its abutters, and said while he can understand the building inspector saying it complied based on part of the plan, the photos tell another story.
“I was there, and they used the words, ‘This is how it’s going to present from the street and here is a picture of it.’” Oliver said.
It’s not clear what the councilors expect the ZBA to do, even if they grant the appeal, since the new buildings are already standing.
“I can tell you what I think it should do, but that’s going to be its prerogative,” Council President Marc Laredo said. “This comes down to an issue of a council order that we spent a considerable amount of time deliberating on, thinking about, and it is clear—to me at least—that what our collective intent was as a Land Use Committee, what our collective intent from the Ward 1 councilors was, what the understanding of the neighbors was, is not what is getting built.”