An Introduction to Brookline Cronyism.
By Jim Conley • February 24th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
It’s not well known around these parts that the Brookline Building Department has been in the practice of “decommissioning” attics and basements in order to adjust the floor area ratios (FAR) of new construction taking place on the same parcel.
This is how it works. In the case of Spooner Road (see previous post), developer 81 Spooner LLC - a corporate entity represented by Selectman’s Chair Robert Allen - purchased the lot at 81 Spooner Road and subdivided it into two lots, hence creating 71 Spooner Road.
When it turned out that the structure at 71 Spooner Road pushed the combined FAR over the limit for the parcel, the Building Department allowed the developer to decommission the finished attic at 81 Spooner Road, subtracting those square feet from the gross floor area at 71 Spooner.
What does decommissioning consist of? In the case of Spooner Road, it means taking out the molding and other features that, according to the Building Department, make it inhabitable. (My Dulcinea often says that my office is uninhabitable, maybe I should get an abatement.)
A more egregious case of decommissioning is at the Longyear project on Fisher Hill. Basement space at so-called Building A was effectively decommissioned by the Building Department to accommodate more gross floor area among the “habitable” parts of the building. But now some 3,000 square feet of basement space has been finished to include a gym and an office. As well, the stairs and vestibules decommissioned for a special building permit are now carpeted and tastefully lighted.
Who has been afforded decommissioning and who hasn’t? Who knows?
More, why are we suffering gladly the foolishness of a building commissioner and board of appeals that think an FAR requirement is something other than matching the size of the structure to the size of the lot?
Perhaps a recent change to the zoning by-law that imposes a ten year waiting period (with only Chairman Allen voting no when it came before the selectmen) will put an end to this practice. Ask the Spooner and Longyear neighbors about that. They’ll likely say that if it’s not decommissioning, it’ll be something else.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Decommissioning seems to be a public process in which the Building Department is involved, perhaps also with the involvement of the Planning Department. But after such decommissioning of an attic or basement space publicly, might the property owner de facto re-use such decommissioned space as “habitable” with some repair or renovation without, wink, wink, going through the permitting process? Habitable space is a significant factor in assessments. But the assessors may not be aware of de facto “recommissioning” without an inspection.
Brookline’s Zoning ByLaw includes an interesting provision in Section 5.09e regarding plan revisions whereby joint action by the Building Commissioner and the Planning Director may determine that a plan revision (subsequent to approval of a plan) is immaterial or minor such that there would be no need to go back to the ZBA. When Bob Duffy was Planning Director, there were instances of disagreements between him and the Building Commission under this ByLaw provision, with the latter prepared to “approve” the change as immaterial or minor. I wonder if perhaps Section 5.09e has been abused since its enactment? Perhaps a public records request is in order.