With four terms under his belt, City Councilor Michael P. Ross shows no signs of slowing down and will run for re-election in the fall.
“I still feel truly blessed that I have this awesome mandate to play a small roll in this great city,” said Ross. “I am still excited to show up for work every day.”
Ross, 35, said his years on the council have taught him how to be more effective at solving problems for his constituents. “The learning curve is so immense in city government, it takes a while to even be effective,” he said. “I have learned to deal with people. There are a lot of complex personalities in City Hall and to navigate through that and get results is not a simple exercise.”
But it is one Ross has managed to succeed at. In his eight years in office he has dealt with a number of different topics and had trouble narrowing down a list of what he is most proud of.
He created and now chairs the Committee on Youth Violent Crime Prevention. While the problem doesn’t directly affect the Back Bay as much as other areas of the city, Ross argues that the crime has a trickle-down effect on the quality of life for residents here. “There is a spillover effect,” he said. “When we are experiencing increased property crimes, those crimes will not be solved until we solve some of the bigger, more violent ones.”
Quality of life issues are important to Ross and he said he will continue to focus on them. “We have an office that responds and has a reputation for being effective.” If re-elected, Ross hopes to try to recognize some of the larger issues and be more strategic in dealing with them. “It is about being on top of the issues,” he said.
Ross said he is also proud of earning his law degree, which has already proved invaluable on the job.
Candidates can apply for nomination papers at City Hall on April 18 and Ross may not be the only one signing up to run in District 8. Insiders have heard rumors that Hereford Street resident Shirley Kressel, founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods, may throw her hat in the ring. Kressel, who has never run for office before, said she has not made a decision to enter the race at this time. Candidates for District 8 need to collect 128 signatures by May 22 in order to run.
Ross said he welcomes the challenge. “That is what democracy’s promise is, for a spirited contest,” he said. “And the candidates are made better as a result.”
Boston Marathon runners take their marks early by Penny Cherubino
For the second year in a row, the Boston Athletic Association (BAA) has made a change in the Boston Marathon that should have a positive effect on the lives of Back Bay residents. On Monday April 16, the race’s traditional noon starting time will move to 10 a.m.
As they did last year, the runners will go under Massachusetts Avenue, allowing pedestrians to cross the racecourse at that point. This change also opens up excellent viewing spots for spectators at the intersection.
The earlier start means a two-hour time shift for neighbors organizing Patriot’s Day around the race. Streets will close earlier in the morning and reopen sooner. The official shutdown of the finish line will be at 4:45 p.m.
Race fans will have to head out earlier to cheer on the runners. BAA Communications Manager Marc Chalufour estimated that the wheelchair athletes will reach the neighborhood a little after 10:30 a.m. The elite women will arrive just before noon and the first men will follow 10 minutes later.
The sound of helicopters signals the approach of the race leaders. When the TV copters near Kenmore Square, it’s time to move to your favorite marathon vantage point and prepare to applaud.
The cheering crowds of the Back Bay are essential to the runners. “Getting to Mass Avenue is a turning point. That’s when you put your fate in the hands of the spectators and let that wave of sound carry you in,” said Chalufour, who ran the race in 2001.
He went on to describe what it was like to turn onto Boylston Street. “That final stretch on Boylston is the equivalent, for the average runner, of running into the Olympic stadium. You have thousands of people cheering for you. You feel like you are the center of the world there. It’s quite a rush!”
More than 150 runners from our area will feel that rush. Some of them gained their spot in the race by raising money for a charity. Marathon runners raise an inspiring amount of cash for 21 local charities. “Last year it was over $7 million, and this year we are expecting in the vicinity of $8 to $9 million,” said Chalufour.
Neighbors can share in the weekend by cheering for or sponsoring a marathoner. After the race, you can also keep an eye on those foil-blanket-wrapped runners. If a runner seems to be having a problem, engage them in conversation. If you have any doubt about their ability to make good judgements and get home safely, race officials ask that you call Boston Emergency Medical Services.
And everyone is welcome to join the runners at the traditional pasta feast at City Hall Plaza on Sunday. As an added treat, the Big Apple Circus will do some mini performances during the dinner. Tickets to the dinner are sold at the Sports & Fitness Expo at the Hynes Auditorium. The Expo will run Friday through Sunday and is free and open to the public.
For more information on any aspect of the race go to www.baa.org.
SIDEBAR:
What are you doing Marathon Day?
“Normally, I watch until the last runner crosses the finish line and get a good suntan. I love my chair. You need a chair if you’re going to be out there the whole time.”
Elleen Kedman, Marlborough Street
“I’m skipping town. I don’t want to watch people trample all over the new grass.”
Jeff Delvy, Commonwealth Avenue
“I’m volunteering for the marathon. When the buses come back, we make sure the runners get their bags.”
Frank Duncan, Marlborough Street
“On marathon day, I’m going to be watching my good friend from college, Terese Grondin, run. She runs in the Boston Marathon every year.”
Cathy Walsh, Commonwealth Avenue
Irish sessions on trial at Crossroads by Suzanne Besser
Crossroads owner Thomas Carlyle’s Irish eyes are smiling these days, especially since the Mayor’s Office of Consumer Affairs and Licensing (MOCAL) gave him the go-ahead to play live Irish music at his Beacon Street bar for a 60-day trial period, starting immediately.
He’ll use these 60 days to prove that the vocalists and instrumentalists jamming on Monday and Thursday evenings will not bother his neighbors, a concern they and the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay expressed at a February 28, 2007, hearing before the licensing committee.
“Such concerns are legitimate, as experience has shown the addition of certain forms of live entertainment to an establishment can increase such problems,” wrote Patricia Malone, director of MOCAL, in her decision. “However, it should also be noted the majority of such issues occur when an establishment adopts the so-called “nightclub” format,” referring to live music with dancing, which she said tends to attract larger numbers of patrons for longer hours.
Therefore, Malone granted Carlyle’s request to add live music to his existing license for the trial period with certain conditions, which include limiting the number of instrumentalists and vocalists to four each. Live music, which may not be amplified, is allowed only on the bar’s first floor and must cease by 1:00 a.m. A public review hearing at Boston City Hall is set for 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 16, to consider how well the operation is going with the addition of live music.
Malone wrote that she did not expect the live music as conditioned to create any additional problems. But, if that is not the case, the licensing division would take appropriate corrective action.
“ Director Malone clearly understood the neighbors’ concerns about noise, traffic and other problems caused by late-night live entertainment,” said Thomas High, NABB’s licensing and building use committee chair, who opposed the addition of live music to the license. “The conditions she imposed are an attempt to address those concerns, and the sixty day trial period will allow the neighbors an opportunity to see if they, in fact, do that.”
But if there are problems, he urged neighbors to let the Crossroads management and MOCAL at once.
Zoning board, Beacon St. owner do battle; Court to decide if roof addition must be demolished by Karen Cord Taylor
The tenants living in the duplex at the top of 194 Beacon have had a windowed loft topped by a roof deck for about eight years, giving them more room in their unit and an expansive view.
Will they get to keep it?
The answer to that question will determine the extent to which Back Bay’s residential zoning and building code limits can be stretched, say observers. But the whole story reveals how lengthy and acrimonious disputes can be when neighbors and the city’s regulatory agencies don’t agree with building owners who want to make changes.
This dispute centers on height. The Back Bay’s current zoning sets the height limit at 65 feet, with many original buildings exceeding this by a few feet.
“The issue becomes how to interpret the rules and the laws,” said Jim Alspaugh, who owns the top floors in 194 Beacon’s mirror-image building at 192 Beacon, and has been critical of his neighbor’s roof-top structure.
It is also about trust in the professionals who come before Boston’s various regulatory boards.
“The information supplied was not accurate,” said Victor B. Castellani, former chair of the zoning committee for the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay. “Boston’s Inspectional Services Department must rely on accurate information supplied by the professionals. They don’t have the engineers and the architects.”
The dispute is ten years old. But it is coming to a head, having made it through the city’s regulatory boards and the Superior Court. About a month ago briefs were filed in preparation for a hearing before the Appeals Court, which should take place in early fall, according to Gil Lima, first assistant clerk in that court.
The crux of the matter is that the Boston Zoning Board of Appeal has said that condominium owner James Rudolph, through his company, Steamboat Realty LLC, built a roof-top addition that exceeds the pre-existing height of the 1862 building by 4 feet, 4 inches. The height of the roof ridge measures 69˝ feet, according to court records that most participants now agree on. This is 4˝ feet above the height allowed by current zoning. The addition brings the height of the building more than eight feet above the current height limit, according to the ZBA. It also makes it subject to codes for buildings over 70 feet.
The ZBA wants Rudolph to remove the addition and return the roof to its original height. The Superior Court agreed.
Rudolph says it would be too costly for him and too disruptive for the building’s occupants to destroy a rooftop addition that professionals he hired assured him was acceptable.
In addition to appealing, Rudolph is also suing his architect, but that case is on hold until the Appeals Court makes a determination.
A long dispute
The story begins in late 1997. Rudolph did not return calls from The Back Bay Sun asking for his point of view, but matters are well documented through affidavits, official transcripts and court decisions.
Rudolph, now 57, hired architect Patrick Ahearn of Ahearn-Schopfer & Associates to design a reconstruction of the top floor at 194 Beacon. Rudolph says in court documents that Ahearn assured him there would be no problem doing what he wanted to do.
Both Rudolph and Ahearn are sophisticated and experienced. Rudolph, who for a time sat on Swampscott’s zoning board of appeal, is the managing partner in the law firm Rudolph Friedmann LLP. His firm’s web site says he practices business, real estate and construction law and also touts his honors, including being named “Best lawyer of 1998” and a Massachusetts Super Lawyer in 2004, 2005 and 2006 by Boston Magazine. Over the years he has been active in philanthropies and is the author of many articles, including “How to Buy Commercial Real Estate” and “Construction Litigation.”
He practices what he preaches, owning at least 12 investment properties in Boston from Charles River Park to Rowes Wharf. Eight of these properties are in the Back Bay.
Patrick Ahearn’s Back Bay architecture firm is responsible for the design of the Hotel Commonwealth in Kenmore Square as well as several reconstructions in the Back Bay and on Beacon Hill.
On January 14, 1998 Ahearn went before the Back Bay Architectural Commission, which has jurisdiction over the envelope of buildings in the neighborhood, to seek approval for a plan to construct a loft within the top floor apartment.
According to a transcript of the BBAC, Ahearn asked for approval for “not building on top of the building, but essentially working within the existing height of the building or within the body of the building.”
His design was complicated to execute. In effect, he planned to cut through the roof and sink a box into the envelope of the building. It would become “a loft within the existing volume of the building,” he said.
To accommodate the box, Ahearn’s plans called for dropping the nine-foot ceiling height in the fifth-floor apartment and lowering the floor under the loft area. An attic of 6 feet, 5 inches above the apartment would make room for the rest of the box. He designed a roof deck on top, replacing an existing roof deck.
The commission thought the plan was acceptable. “It is a non-addition,” Ahearn assured them, according to the transcript. “We are really removing two sections of the roof . . . that is essentially it.”
A commissioner asked him pointedly: “So you are just increasing floor space, you are not increasing height?”
“Correct,” said Ahearn. “We are staying within the body of the building.”
The commission approved the plan, based on its understanding that the proposed approach, according to its decision, “will result in no additional height or exterior volume, and that mechanical equipment will be located within the depressed courtyard area, below the plane of the existing roof.”
On April 10, Ahearn filed a building permit application and received a permit on October 22, 1998.
At this point, Ahearn told the Sun, he was no longer associated with the project, since he was not hired to do construction administration.
On June 18, 1999, Boston’s Inspectional Services Department issued a certificate of occupancy.
Not so fast
Meanwhile, Alspaugh looked at the roof next door and said the new structure rose several feet above the original roof ridge. He invited Castellani to take a look. Castellani soon filed a complaint with ISD, claiming that the reconstruction had materially increased the height of the property.
“It’s ridiculous,” said Alspaugh. “The roof plane is completely different. He shouldn’t have a certificate of occupancy.”
Legal wheels move slowly, but on March 31, 2000, the BBAC sent a notice of violation to Rudolph. It said that the structure had not been depressed below the roof, but was raised several feet above the original roof line and that it was significantly above the 65-foot height limit.
In response, Rudolph hired two registered professional land surveyors. One declared the property was in conformity with the plans approved by the BBAC and ISD. The other said it was 8 inches taller than the plans. Both measured from the outside of the building.
Ahearn measured from the inside. In a June 27, 2001 affidavit he said that by his calculations, the roof elevation does not exceed the previously existing roof elevation. He said the “distance between the top of the existing height of the ceiling at the fifth floor unit into the attic space to the top of the existing roof ridge at its highest point totaled 6 feet, 5 inches. But he did not directly address the height of the entire building.
Ahearn told the Sun that his affidavit was based on his own plans and the opinions of the surveyors. It was only later, he said, that he actually saw what was built.
“I don’t believe that they built according to the plans,” he said.
Nevertheless, based on the surveyors’ opinions, Ahearn prepared “as built” plans for the property, in an effort to obtain a variance.
On December 20, 2000, ISD’s Philip B. Taylor wrote that he and an inspector visited the site on several occasions “to make inspections relative to the building height.” He recommended that the as-built plans be accepted and said, since the measurement differential was so small, there was no reason for the ZBA to get involved.
But on January 2, 2001, ISD changed its mind, saying the matter “requires relief” from the ZBA.
Within a few days, Rudolph’s lawyers filed an appeal with the ZBA requesting a variance and asking “to legalize as-built plans to reflect the built conditions of the property as modified per plans, which amounts to an eight-inch building height over that allowed by code.”
In July, 2001, NABB weighed in with letters to the ZBA “strongly opposing” legalizing the structure and accusing the owner and architect of misleading them with height surveys. NABB wrote that the submitted plans were “mis-dimensioned, falsely representing that the structure would fit within the zoning height limit.” They contended that the roof addition was 4.15 feet in excess of the original 69.5 foot roof ridge height as specified on the plans filed with ISD.
In July the ZBA sent one of its members, Anthony Pisani, to look at the project. Two days before that visit, Rudolph said in a complaint filed on October 22, 2001, that he visited the site and became aware for the first time that the height as built might exceed the property’s pre-existing highest point by between 2 and 5 feet. Rudolph said he had relied on experts, including inspectors from ISD, as well as surveyors and his architect to keep within the limits.
Rudolph again tried to legalize the structure in August, 2001, saying the cost would be prohibitive to rebuild, and the construction would badly affect the tenants.
The ZBA denied Rudolph’s motion.
In October, 2001, Rudolph sued the ZBA as well as Ahearn.
But the suits have taken a long time. It wasn’t until September, 2004, that discovery took place. Finally on January 17, 2006, the case went before Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders, who ruled against Rudolph, affirming the ZBA’s decision.
In her opinion, she said, “although they did obtain the approval of the BBAC and the ISD to perform the renovations, these approvals were based on plans which were substantially different from what was actually constructed, thus giving rise to the question of whether there was some intent by one or both of them at some point to mislead or deceive.”
The suit against Ahearn is on hold until the Court of Appeals rules.
“Zoning is the issue that was cited, but in addition this is a code issue,” said Castellani. “It’s the integrity of the system that is at stake.”
Sometime this fall, the Court of Appeals will decide if the rooftop addition has to be removed.
Keep Back Bay’s landlocked tidelands exempt from Chapter 91
On February 12, 2007, the Supreme Judicial Court decided that the Department of Environmental Protection needed legislative authority to spare homeowners and businesses on landlocked tidelands from having to secure a license under Chapter 91, the legislation that protects the public’s access to the state’s waterways.
This could be a bureaucratic nightmare for almost every homeowner in our neighborhood. The Legislature should act immediately to pass House 3757, which would confirm DEP’s legislative authority to limit Chapter 91 licensing to the current waterfront — as DEP has done without controversy under Chapter 91 regulations to date.
A little history first. In the 1600s, extensive tidal flats and shallows surrounded many Massachusetts port cities. Under rules derived from earlier English law, the public enjoyed a right to fish, fowl and navigate over these areas.
Over time, many of the tidal flats and shallows were filled in and built up. They came to be so distant from the ocean that any right to fish or hunt ducks and geese there, let alone navigate a boat over them, no longer existed. These filled tidelands, often far from the modern waterfront, became known as "landlocked tidelands."
When the Dukakis Administration toughened Chapter 91 in the 1980s, a “grand bargain” was struck among DEP, environmental groups and the business community. To correct title uncertainties for the many homeowners and businesses on landlocked tidelands and to focus state licensing resources on public access to properties that continued to have a practical connection to the waterfront, DEP exempted landlocked tidelands from licensing. The DEP’s exemption regulation took effect in 1990 and has been non-controversial ever since.
The result of the recent SJC decision is to require ALL properties on landlocked tidelands to obtain Chapter 91 licenses from DEP, regardless of when the land was filled or buildings built or uses started or changed. DEP estimates that approximately 3000 acres of such landlocked tidelands exist in Boston and Cambridge alone.
Under the SJC ruling, homeowners and businesses in the Back Bay and elsewhere on filled lands far from waterways would require Chapter 91 licenses on properties that are now high and dry. Without such a license, a homeowner on Exeter Street who wants to refinance could face problems with his or her lender, since the property would lack a necessary state permit, even though it is more than 100 years old. The Pru is in trouble too.
Unless the legislature acts.
On March 1, 2007, Governor Patrick filed legislation, prepared by DEP, to seamlessly authorize and continue DEP’s landlocked tidelands exemption.
Opponents of the Governor’s bill have thrown up certain accusations to distract the press and the public. They started with personal attacks on members of the Administration who had already disclosed any conflicts of interest and recused themselves. Then they claimed that the bill gives up public parkland or cuts back wetlands protections, when it does no such thing. Then they claimed that requiring Chapter 91 licensing might affect groundwater levels in Boston. As Boston residents know, the city has already addressed this issue with zoning, an appropriate local tool for a serious local matter. Chapter 91 licensing would have no effect on groundwater.
Enough. The Legislature should act promptly to approve the Governor’s bill to avoid clouding the title of thousands of homeowners and businesses in eastern Massachusetts and to protect the public’s rights to use the waterfront where they matter most — on the current waterfront. The grand bargain struck in the 1980s was wise and has been properly relied on by many property owners over the years. The DEP’s landlocked tidelands exemption wasn’t broke. And as all New Englanders know, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Just put it back the way it was.
)
)