Still, Druker needed a special exception to get his 130 ft height. There is special zoning governing this specific block of Boylston capping the height of any building at 85 ft. Presumably, this zoning was put in place to protect both the Arlington Street church and Public Garden from being overwhelmed by hulking, out-of-scale development -- in other words, exactly this type of proposal.
There was a special exception written into the zoning that grants a height of 130 ft, only to be granted after a public design review. In this particular case, however, it seems granting such an exception completely violates the spirit and purpose of the existing zoning. I seriously doubt it was intended to allow megalithic development like Druker's proposal.
Here is some of the pertinent zoning (
all of which can downloaded from the BRA's website):
This is the zoning relating to the height of the district (B-8-120c):
SECTION 16-6.
Height of Structures within One Hundred Feet of Certain Streets that Bound Boston Common or the Public Garden. Any building or portion thereof within one hundred feet of the nearest street line of any street described below shall not exceed the height specified for such street as follows:
...
b. South side of Boylston Street from the westerly sideline of Arlington Street to a point 100 feet west of Arlington Street, to a depth of 50 feet from Boylston Street: 85 feet maximum height; beyond said depth of 50 feet: 130 feet maximum height; except that such requirement in a B-8-120c district shall be subject to the provisions of Article 6A.
...
Here is the section of 6A that specifies what conditions need to be met for approval to the exception:
SECTION 6A-3.
Conditions Required for Approval. The Board of Appeal shall allow an exception only if it finds:
(a) That such exception is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this code;
(b) The exception requested is in conformity with one or more of the following, as applicable: (I) the development plan for the planned development area or (ii) the land assembly and redevelopment or urban renewal plan, or the low rent housing project or housing project for elderly persons of low income for the urban renewal area, or (iii) the plan adopted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority for the downtown district involved, or for the Harborpark District, and such conformity has been certified to by the Boston Redevelopment Authority; or if the exception relates to a setback of parapet requirement in a B-6-90a, B-6-90b, B-8-120a, or B-8-120c district, the Boston Redevelopment Authority has certified to the Board of Appeal that the proposed project has been subject to design review; or if the exception relates to the requirement of Section 25-5.8 concerning the location of a structure in a high hazard coastal (V zone) district, the project has received a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
(c) if such appeal relates to a Development Impact Project, as defined in Section 80B-7, the applicant shall have complied with the Development Impact Project Exaction requirements set forth in Section 80B-7.3; and
...
It also states:
SECTION 6A-1.
...the Board of Appeal may, in a specific case after public notice and hearing, allow an exception from the provisions of this code...
