By Karen Klinger

The bulldozers will not be moving in to dig up Shady Hill Square. Not yet, anyway.

After a contentious hearing in front of an overflow crowd on November 29, the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) voted to delay until February any decision about whether to revoke or reinstate a building permit issued to developers who want to build a 5,000-square-foot house on the grassy common that is the centerpiece of a celebrated urban design experiment dating back to 1915.

Located in the city's Agassiz neighborhood near the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Harvard Divinity School, the U-shaped square serves as a common yard for a dozen stucco houses that were built around it nearly a century ago as part of an idealistic urban living concept known as the Garden City movement.

For generations, residents of the square and nearby neighbors have treated it as a public space, using it for picnics, recreation, parties and even a wedding. They knew the land was privately owned, but assumed it could not be built on, especially since the city did not collect property taxes on it for more than a quarter-century.

But all that changed in September, when neighbors discovered that the property had been sold for $850,000, and the buyer, Stonehouse Holdings, planned to erect a large house on it they promptly dubbed a "McMansion," which they say will destroy the square and the only open space in that corner of the city.

Residents also found that Stonehouse already had been issued a building permit, spurring them to file a complaint with the city and file a lawsuit in the state land court.

In response, the city issued a temporary stop work order. Then, on November 1, it seemed the neighbors had won a one-year suspension of any development on the property when the Cambridge Historical Commission voted to study whether it should be granted landmark status--something that the city council would ultimately have to approve.

However, the commission's action proved to be just a lull in the storm. Stonehouse appealed to the BZA, which on the surface has the power to revive the building permit, trumping the Historical Commission. That led to the lengthy and contentious hearing in which scores of residents turned out to support arguments that the developers lied to city officials to obtain the permit.

Dennis Townley, a lawyer and longtime Shady Hill Square homeowner, told board members that the permit should not have been issued for a number of reasons, including that: the building would exceed the residential height limit; a planned retaining wall would be a safety hazard, impeding emergency vehicles, garbage trucks and snowplows which try to maneuver around the private lane surrounding the square; the former property owner did not sign the permit application, as required by law; and the property--like the houses around it--is subject to flooding.

Although building commissioner Ranjit Singanayagam said the permit had been granted only after "months of discussions" involving the developers and various city agencies, he agreed that the issues raised by the residents warranted further consideration, even though some board members wondered whether they fell outside the BZA's purview.

Townley, claiming the developers knowingly submitted plans that understated their building's maximum height, responded, "You're saying that the board does not deal with outright misrepresentation?"

Thomas Harrington, an attorney for Stonehouse, objected to the board's suggestion that the two sides engage in a dialogue, adding "I hope we're not going to open up new processes" as the city reconsiders the permit.

Two city councilors, Henrietta Davis and Brian Murphy, appeared at the hearing in support of the residents, as they had at the Historical Commission. Said Murphy, "My take is that this is a building permit that was issued in error."

In the end, board members decided to continue the matter until their February 7 meeting.

(See previous story.)

Contact Karen Klinger at kmklinger [at] comcast [dot] net