By Brian Denitzio
News Editor

After more than a year of continued stalemate, there is some movement again in the long-standing intra-neighborhood feud over a home at 99 Melville Avenue. Plaintiffs in a suit that sought to block construction of the home are moving forward, asking the court to enforce a ruling that the house be demolished. In response, the owners of the home have launched a new effort to amend the city's zoning code in what may be a last-ditch effort to save the house.

Last January, a state appeals court upheld a 2003 decision by the Suffolk Superior Court that ordered the demolition of the home. Action to enforce the court's ruling was put on hold after the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) proposed an amendment to the city's zoning code that would have allowed the house to stand. Plaintiffs in the case waited for resolution of the amendment, but earlier this month determined that enough time had passed.

"The plaintiffs are moving forward to resolve this issue and asking the court to enforce the remedy," said Yvonne Ruggles, a resident of Melville Ave. and one of the plaintiffs in the case.

That action by the plaintiffs drew a response from the owner's of the home, Anthony and Jacqueline O'Flaherty. Last week, they filed a proposed amendment to the Zoning Commission seeking to add Lot Frontage to a clause in Dorchester's zoning code that allows for exceptions to minimum requirements for Lot Width and Lot Size.

The amendment was received by the Zoning Commission on March 13, and a hearing has not been scheduled because the amendment is still under review, according to Jeffrey Hampton, a senior planner with the BRA.

The amendment has already been met with some resistance from neighborhood groups. Meetinghouse Hill Civic Association took up the matter of the proposed amendment at its monthly meeting last Wednesday.

"I presented it to the civic association and said that we need to consider if this amendment is good for Meetinghouse Hill and it does seem to pose the premise that what are currently considered unbuildable lots may become buildable lots, as of right," said Jim Kantaros, the association's president.

The association voted unanimously to oppose the amendment, said Kantaros, who plans to draft a letter to the commission notifying it of the association's vote.

Hampton stated that all amendments proposed by residents of the city of Boston are granted a hearing by the Zoning Commission. For an amendment to pass, it needs the support of seven members of the commission. Once passed, the amendment then goes to the mayor, who will have 15 days to sign it, reject it, or do nothing. If 15 days pass with no action from the mayor, the amendment automatically goes into effect. He estimated the commission receives only a handful of proposed amendments from residents each year.

The amendment's affect on the matter at 99 Melville Ave. remains unclear. One Boston attorney with a specialty in zoning law doubted that the proposed amendment would have any bearing on the 99 Melville case, even if it were adopted at some point in the future.

"All of it seems prospective," said the attorney, who spoke about the case, but did not want to be identified. "I believe it would have an impact going forward, but not in this specific case."

"I'd be very surprised if anyone could reverse it. In my opinion, you would have to have a special act of the Legislature to have affect.

"They (the O'Flahertys) are really in a jam."

The O'Flahertys' amendment is the second such amendment that would change the way zoning code is applied at 99 Melville Ave. Last year, the BRA initiated an amendment that would make Lot Frontage and Lot Width the same measurement. The BRA argued that the amendment was a correction of an oversight in the zoning code.

The process surrounding the BRA's amendment caused confusion and drew fierce criticism in Dorchester. Some argued that the change was being pushed by the city to accommodate the O'Flaherty's disputed property. The Reporter subsequently found that officials from the city of Boston had considered the amendment's implication for the home at 99 Melville Ave., and had consulted with the O'Flahertys' attorney in the writing of the amendment.

The commission postponed a vote on the amendment until more input could be sought from the five communities that would be affected by the amendment&emdash;Dorchester, East Boston, Allston-Brighton, Fenway, and Roxbury&emdash;a BRA spokesperson said at the time.

Hampton said this week that the BRA amendment is not moving forward.

Since the court's ruling last January, there has been one mediation session between the O'Flahertys and the plaintiffs, held in November of last year. That attempt at mediation failed, Ruggles said.

The single-family home was constructed by the O'Flahertys at 99 Melville Ave., adjacent to their existing two-family home at 97 Melville. When reached for comment, Jacqueline O'Flaherty declined to comment, referring questions to her attorney.