On Brookline

This is bizarre (yes, even by Brookline standards). In looking through the Brookline Preservation Commission’s files on the housing project at St. Aidan’s there is a hardly a mention of plans to raze the rectory building at the site [more on that later].

But once a permit application was approved by the Banana Republic of Brookline’s Zoning Board of Appeals, questions were raised over plans to demolish the building.

The central question, presumably asked by preservation commission members, was whether the Town’s Demolition Delay By-law was subsumed by the comprehensive permit.

Yes, was the emphatic answer given. Now a reasonable person would expect such counsel to be the product of the Town’s legal department (operating at a taxpayer expense of nearly $1 million per year). No, this legal opinion came from Robert J. Duffy, the Town’s planning director at the time.

What the..?

In his opinion [click here to read] Duffy says, “I believe that the approved comprehensive permit and associated plans and documents are consistent with MGL Chapter 40B, and fully document the intent of the Board of Appeals regarding the demolition of the former rectory and accessory structures.”

Though he copies the town’s lawyers on the memo, there is no indication that he consulted with them in rendering his legal opinion. And since when do we go to the bar on beliefs?

Folks, there’s a reason the opinion comes from the Planning Department and not the Town’s lawyers. It’s bullshit. It doesn’t address the legality of the comprehensive permit in relation to the By-law. It obfuscates the issue by discussing the presumption that the ZBA knew of the demolition at the time they issued the permit.

I’ve yet to hear a legal argument that says the Demolition Delay By-law has been obviated by the comprehensive permit. Could that be because there isn’t one?

Update: Gets more bizarre by the moment. Stay tuned.