Zoners Reject Bedrooms, Preserve Backyard

Neighbors concerned about a built-up backyard bested a landlord looking to renovate and expand a dilapidated vacant house — as the zoning board sided with open space and sunlight over more, new small-scale housing.

The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) took that vote Tuesday night during their latest regular monthly meeting, which — for the first time in more than four years — was held in person on the second floor of City Hall, as well as online via Zoom.

The zoning board members voted 3 – 2 in support of variances to allow a side yard setback of 2.8 feet where 8 feet is required, a building wall height of 17 feet where 5.6 feet is permitted, and a building coverage of 37 percent where 30 percent is permitted, at 67 Winchester Ave.

That application was submitted by 67 Winchester LLC, a holding company controlled by local landlord and real estate agent James Huffman, with the goal of adding two new bedrooms apiece to the first- and second-floor apartments at a currently vacant two-family house.

Even though a majority of the board members voted in support of the application, the variances were denied — because a minimum of four affirmative votes is needed for approval, and the application won only three.

“I do believe that part of our review in the commission is to also adhere to the environment that the application is being applied to,” said BZA Commissioner Chris Peralta as he cast the second and decisive ​“no” vote for this project. ​“I do believe that, just because it’s on paper, it is in accordance to the law and standards, it also impacts the nature of the environment and the neighborhood. So I’m going to deny.”

Local land-use attorney Ben Trachten, representing Huffman’s company, presented the application to the board on Tuesday as allowing for the addition of 480 square feet to the first and second floors of an existing 1,375 square-foot house.

He stressed that the landlord will not be adding any new dwelling units through this development work. Instead, the proposal is to build an addition that allows for the house to remain a two-family — with space for two extra bedrooms on both the first and second floors.

Three neighbors turned out to Tuesday’s meeting in person and online to speak out against the proposal.

One was Fabian Drixler, who lives nearby on Mansfield Street.

“If this non-resident investor is allowed to double the size of the building to almost entirely build over the backyard, we will be settled with a constant anxiety over what is going to happen next,” Drixler warned. ​“We will live with a psychological burden of whether or not the beautiful home we have tried to build on this block will be degraded.” He accused the landlord of only trying to ​“maximize the amount of rent they want to extract” from this property, as opposed to improving the quality of life and housing in the area.

Ally Brundige, who lives right next door on Winchester Avenue, also urged the commissioners to turn down the application.

She said she moved into her home on Winchester ​“with the understanding that my city would protect me because of the zoning laws that were in place.”

“I just ask you to do that, to protect me from an encroachment that will financially damage my ability to sell my house, my property that I have invested in,” and that will have detrimental psychological and emotional effects on her quality of life through the addition of a new looming structure right next to her home.

Trachten countered that his client owns and has fixed up other properties in the neighborhood, including on Mansfield and Compton Streets. He is ​“deeply committed and involved in the neighborhood.”

As for the neighbors’ concerns, Trachten said, ​“unfortunately, we don’t deal with the psychological and the emotional” in zoning law. ​“We deal with the nuts and bolts of the zoning ordinance. Sometimes that involves change, and sometimes that’s change that neighbors don’t particularly like.”

Trachten argued that the variances requested by his client do constitute the minimum needed relief for this project. An alternative to a two-story addition, he said, would be the construction of a four-story home here. He also stressed that this project won’t be changing the number of dwelling units at this property — and that the zoning ordinance does not regulate the number of bedrooms per property in this zone.

“This is a seriously blighted property that’s sat in deplorable [condition] … for a considerable period of time,” he said. His client’s plans will improve the home, and be much better for the neighborhood than what’s currently there. Plus, he said, ​“you don’t purchase a house with the expectation that everything around you is going to stay the same in perpetuity.”

When it came time to vote, three commissioners — Mike Martinez, Adam Waters, and Al Paolillo, Sr. — voted in support of the requested variances, and two — Peralta and Gemini Rorie — voted against.

With only three rather than the needed four votes of support, the application was denied.