A group of 12 citizens is fighting a Boston Redevelopment Authority plan calling for a restaurant at the end of Long Wharf in downtown Boston, claiming that the land is protected open space.
The restaurant, to be called Doc's, is part of the BRA's long-term plan to reconnect the city with the sea, and enliven a section of the waterfront they refer to as a dead zone.
But the group views the project as a hijacking of public waterfront that for years has offered residents a reprieve from the whir of city life.
"There isn't another piece of property like this in downtown Boston. It is so unique," said Thomas Schiavoni, a member of the citizens' group opposing the project.
Last fall, the 12 North End residents filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to contest the agency's decision to grant a Chapter 91 license, which regulates wetlands activity and was one of the last authorizations needed before construction could begin.
Doc's, to be owned and operated by Eat Drink Laugh Restaurant Group, which also owns West on Centre in West Roxbury and 21st Amendment across from the State House, was initially slated to open Memorial Day weekend of 2008 .
The conflict came to a head on Feb. 24 during a hearing for the appeal, which was held at the DEP in downtown Boston.
During the proceedings, the group, led by Sanjoy Mahajan, a lecturer in electrical engineering at MIT, argued that Long Wharf is protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts constitution, which preserves land around the Commonwealth for the public.
The group pointed to the city's own Park and Recreations Department that designates Long Wharf on its website as protected open space under Article 97, as well as under Chapter 91, the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Wetland Protection Act .
To build on land that falls under Article 97 protection, approval is needed by two-thirds of the state Legislature, which the BRA never sought, the group argued.
In their submitted testimony, the group has also argued the BRA's plan would significantly decrease what is now a 270-degree panoramic view of the harbor, privatize what is intended to be public land designated by the state for passive recreation, and contribute noise pollution to the area.
On their part, the BRA, represented by Rosenberg & Schapiro, P.C. , submitted in early February roughly a thousand pages of testimony to defend the merits of the project and show how it would complement, not be contrary to, public usage of the Long Wharf plaza.
The BRA declined to comment on the appeal, though agency spokeswoman Jessica Shumaker expressed hope for a quick resolution.
With the Tall Ships set to arrive in Boston in early July, there is added incentive to have the restaurant completed and open for business by the summer.
Last March, The Boston Globe reported on the plans for Long Wharf and the agency's enthusiasm for what a restaurant would bring to the plaza, including public restrooms, a designated public seating area and an attraction that would bring people down to the end of the wharf year-round.
The restaurant would also be a source of income for the agency in the form of lease payments.
To the citizens' group, which has no formal legal representation, the sheer size of the BRA's response was overwhelming, Mahajan said.
Initially, they had one week to submit their rebuttal, but they were granted an extra week, and filed in time for the hearing.
Mahajan said their half of the hearing went well and was pleased his group was able to testify on many of the issues they see as key to winning the appeal.
But they are considering seeking other avenues, too, including petitioning the Massachusetts attorney general's office on the Article 97 question, according to Mary McGee, another member of the group opposing the project.
The hearing will continue tomorrow at DEP headquarters in Boston at which time the BRA will present its case and the group opposing the project will have an opportunity to cross-examine the agency's witnesses.
A decision from the DEP's commissioner, Laurie Burt, is expected by the end of April, according to Edmund Coletta, spokesman for the agency.
Both parties then have the option of appealing to Suffolk County Superior Court.
? Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
