By Jim O'Sullivan
News Editor

Yielding to pressure from confused and angry community activists, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) this week said it agreed to delay a city board's vote on two amendments to the zoning code, with officials promising to gather input before again pushing for the change.

At a crowded Monday night meeting at Dorchester's IBEW Hall, the BRA, which proposed the change last month to the city zoning commission, vowed a series of meetings in the five Boston neighborhoods covered under the measure, which purports to clarify ambiguities in the existing code.

Dorchester has proved the most resistant to the change, largely because of potential ramifications to a property on Melville Avenue that has roiled that neighborhood for four years. Several court cases have unfolded over the house, which sits in violation of zoning laws, with its owners making the case that the house does not drastically alter the character of the neighborhood.

Internal records released last week showed that senior BRA officials weighed the amendment in the context of the combustive 99 Melville case, and consulted repeatedly with an attorney for the property owners, the O'Flaherty family.

Privately, two Menino Administration officials said Monday that the BRA had botched the community outreach process, and should have solicited feedback before scheduling zoning commission vote on March 23, where several Dorchester residents turned out in opposition.

Another vote was marked for May 4, but city and BRA officials have opted to push back that vote and attempt rallying community support through meetings in the designated neighborhoods, which include Allston-Brighton, East Boston, Fenway, and Roxbury

"We really want to get input," said Susan Elsbree, a BRA spokeswoman, on Monday. "We'll see what the community thinks - not just Dorchester, but all five communities."

Elsbree said that the BRA could be convinced to tweak the amendment, but refused to offer a timeframe. "It won't be a short process," she said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

At Monday's meeting, with approximately 300 people packing the IBEW Local 103 Hall on Freeport Street, most of the amendment's critics expressed their willingness to preserve the house but strike down the policy change.

"This is not about keeping a house, but about the process, a process that was not followed," said Peter Sasso, a Melville-Park resident who implored city councillors: "Help to mediate the situation, and not just take a stand one way or the other."

The crowd seemed split evenly, but emotionally, with both amendment advocates and detractors earning sustained applause. At one point, some O'Flaherty supporters and Yvonne Ruggles, one of the plaintiffs in the case against the family, engaged in a shouting match, but for most of the two-and-a-half-hour meeting, moderated by Bill Cotter, a senior Department of Neighborhood Development official and member of the Columbia/Savin Hill Civic Association, the tone remained civil.

Several who spoke in favor of the amendment, many of them sporting "Clarify the Code" pins, agreed with BRA officials who said the new language would prevent similar battles in the future.

"A zoning regulation has a human dimension," said Joe Pelfrey, a Mather St. resident and direct abutter of the controversial property, who said the change would clarify ambiguities. "If this is the kind of responsible development of a vacant lot that can occur through the amendment, then I strongly support it."

Dorchester City Councillor Charles Yancey, in whose district the lot sits, and who lives around the corner, opposed the amendment, saying, "I don't believe we should use a broad brush and have an impact on so many neighborhoods and the zoning plan … Let's keep the people in the process. Let's keep it so that the abutters are allowed to voice an opinion."

At-Large City Councillor Maura Hennigan, who is challenging Mayor Thomas M. Menino, said she opposed the amendment in part because the BRA had not provided enough information.

"It think it's very important for people to understand exactly what the ramifications in each neighborhood will be," Hennigan said.

The authority has been unable to offer any estimates about how many lots would be affected in any of the areas, leading some to wonder how widespread the impact could be.

Another obstacle for amendment proponents has been its link to 99 Melville Ave., the one-family home started in 2001 by Jacqueline and Anthony O'Flaherty, despite a pending lawsuit filed by several neighbors. While courts juggled the lawsuits, the O'Flahertys completed the home, despite warnings that it could be ordered destroyed. Emotions ran high throughout, and in January a state appeals court upheld the decision to tear down the house.

City officials, civic activists, and Melville neighbors have been unable to separate the Melville case from the larger zoning policy, creating an intractable situation that has complicated both facets.

Internal City Hall memoranda obtained by the Reporter last week showed BRA officials negotiating terms of the amendment last month with Martin Healy, attorney for the O'Flahertys. In one exchange, Rebecca Lee, the senior BRA counsel who took her post last year after leaving the Goodwin Procter law firm where Healy still works, asked a designer to change the amendment, reasoning, "Marty Healy may be able to use it in the litigation later."

But Dorchester City Councillor Maureen Feeney, who has supported the O'Flahertys' cause throughout, and has lobbied in support of the amendment, said on Monday, "We're not trying to hoodwink people or pull something off. We literally believe that this was language that was not added."

The memos also showed that Menino aides pursued back channels in an effort to broker a compromise solution, with policy and planning director Michael Kineavy and BRA director Mark Maloney in talks with Patrick and Alyce Lee, a local developer and former Menino chief of staff, respectively.

After early attempts to bring the two sides together, and learning that the plaintiffs sought the reimbursement of $70,000 in legal fees and an apology, Patrick Lee decided in mid-March that "[t]here has been too much personal animosity over the years" to reach a satisfactory solution.

Almost all of the nearly 30 speakers on Monday referenced the Melville Ave. case in some way.

But several opponents of the change say its impact could reach beyond even the five neighborhoods affected. Acknowledging that its language applies only to lots meeting existing code standards, Fields Corner activist Michael Cote pointed out that neither Hyde Park nor Roslindale has been rezoned in recent decades, and that property lots there would be exempt from that clause.

Monday's meeting also served as a visibility event for several citywide candidates, who spotted the meeting as something of a supervoter haven. Hennigan and fellow mayoral contender Gareth Saunders attended, as did at-large hopefuls John Connolly, Kevin McRea, and Matt O'Malley.