Hey, there! Log in / Register

War over proposed Beacon Hill roof deck spills into court; pits billionaire philanthropist against couple who moved from Cambridge

Barr Foundation founder Amos Hostetter Jr., who lives in the historic Harrison Gray Otis mansion on Mt. Vernon Street, today sued a couple relatively recently arrived from Cambridge over the roof deck they have proposed for their historic, if smaller, house out back on Pinckney Street.

In his suit, filed with the owners of a neighboring Pinckney Street house in Suffolk Superior Court, Hostetter also names the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, which approved the proposed deck last month. The suit seeks to have the approval overturned, to bar Sarah Rilley and Per Ostman from having the deck built at their new home at 54 Pinckney St. - and to make them and the commission reimburse Hostetter's attorneys for their work on the case.

The commission approved the proposed deck on Aug. 15, concluding it would have "de minimis" impact on the historic area:

The deck will not be visible from any vantage point on Pinckney or Anderson Streets, will be only slightly visible along an approximate ten-foot stretch of Mount Vernon Street, and will be less visible from the latter vantage point than two similarly situated and previously approved decks located at 56 and 58 Pinckney Street, respectively. The only other Public Way from which the deck will be visible is Alley 303, a narrow (sidewalk width), dead-end, and minimally-trafficked walled passageway with limited apparent accessibility to the public. Consistent with prior decisions regarding the impact of views from this largely hidden vantage point, it was determined that visibility therefrom will not adversely impact the overall historic character of the block and thus does not preclude a finding of de minimis visibility overall.

Balderdash, Hostetter's lawsuit thunders:

Upon information and belief, the proposed roof deck would be visible from and would allow direct views into, the private back yards and other aspects of the Hostetter Property and the McNamara/Bordewick Property.

The proposed roof deck will cause each of the plaintiffs to suffer particularized harm that is special and different from the concerns of the community at large, including, without limitation:
a. Loss of privacy;
b. Increased noise;
c. Interference with views from their properties;
d. Damage to the historic character of the Beacon Hill district; and
e. Diminished property values as a result of the loss of privacy, increased noise, interference with views, and damage to the historic character of the district.

The complaint charges the architectural commission regulations specifically bar roof decks "that are visible from a public way" in the Beacon Hill historic district and state that "no alteration will be approved that is inappropriate to the historical character, architectural design, and materials of the building or its setting."

Hostetter filed his suit along with Martha McNamara and James Bordewick, Jr., who own 56 Pinckney St.

In its provisional decision, the commission noted that the proposed deck at 54 Pinckney would be similar in nature to the one 56 Pinckney St. the commission had earlier approved.

Hostetter and his wife Barbara bought the Second Harrison Gray Otis House, built by Charles Bulfinch between 1800 and 1802, for an estimated $12 million in 2003 . At the time, that made it the most expensive house in Boston. Today, the city assesses its worth at $18.2 million.

Reilly and Ostman paid $5.8 million for their new home on Pinckney Street in 2022 - just two months after the Globe had profiled them for their "funky Cambridge loft with a mirrored shower that’s like being in 'a Picasso' " in Cambridge.

Their home was built in the 1830s for Boston attorney George Hilliard, whose partner was Charles Sumner, who would eventually become a senator. Nathaniel Hawthorne lived in the house as Hilliard's guest for 18 months while he worked at the Boston Custom House.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

So, I'm confused... if the co-plaintiffs at 56 Pinkney St already have a roof deck and so do their neighbors at #58 (per the approval), both of which are closer to the Otis house than #54, how can the Hostetters claim a deck at #54 will cause them loss of privacy?

up
Voting closed 36

Or that could be a claim exclusive to the folks at 56 Pinckney?

Guess now it's up to the lawyers to sort it out.

up
Voting closed 19

Go out to 'Sconset. There is a deeded path which runs behind the houses along Baxter Road between the houses and the beach.

It is a public way, which was given in the late 1800's before someone who lives on Beacon Hill bought a house along Baxter Road.

You are about 50 feet from the houses and you can see right into their living rooms (owing that most have massive picture windows, not a perv thing). It is funny as hell because most of the owners, who are damn well used to getting what they want because they have gobs of money, have land that goes down to the water, which in some cases can be 500 feet away yet anyone can walk up this path which cuts through their yards. It gets used a lot.

The only thing which will kill this pathway is erosion.

You want isolation, move to northern Somerset County Maine. Property rights are a fun thing and may the judge on this case tell a certain someone where he can stick his lawsuit.

up
Voting closed 48

There is a restaurant in the North End where you can see directly into the living rooms of the apartments across the street. I could even see what TV show they were watching. (It was "Friends", by the way. This was relatively recently, so it was a rerun).

up
Voting closed 20

over the parvenus. He earned it with his donations.

up
Voting closed 20

Seriously? I give donations to groups therefore, I get what I want on a completely unrelated matter. Is that how you see it?

Change your name to Ben Dover. It is apparent that you are a willing fool to what the rich want despite the correct legal machinations of the bodies which govern development and the appearance of residences on Beacon Hill.

up
Voting closed 61

But there are ways to disagree with somebody without immediately whipping out your Schoolyard Insult Cannon.

up
Voting closed 54

Anyone who thinks rich people should get away with things because they are rich and have spread "donations" around (Hello Mayor!) really ought to be quickly insulted.

up
Voting closed 25

Quick to throw out insults, quick to be insulted if it involves our Irish heritage.

Hey, at least you didn't make an ableist comment again, thats growth and I hope comes with getting thicker skin.

Sláinte!

up
Voting closed 28

If Adam doesn't remove offending ethnic insults after being told of them, it indicates to me that you can basically say anything here.

Focáil leat.

up
Voting closed 21

I look forward to less temper tantrums!

Chisler

up
Voting closed 24

.

up
Voting closed 13

.

up
Voting closed 13

Is that Irish for pigeon poking on the Common?

up
Voting closed 19

there are ways to disagree with somebody without immediately whipping out your Schoolyard Insult Cannon

Obviously you weren't born and bred in Boston.

up
Voting closed 25

So don't talk to me about hair-trigger insulting. It's our love language.

up
Voting closed 42

That's offensive to people who are bald!

But you can get away with that since...

up
Voting closed 20

Follically challenged @Kaz, Follically challenged... Get with the program! /s

up
Voting closed 17

There are a few of the serial posters on here that could stand to hear that. One in particular that can only communicate by hurling insults to others when they have a different opinion comes to mind. We all know who it is.

up
Voting closed 24

I agree with John on this, despite him having the demeanor of a person with a large kidney stone lodged in his/her urethra.

up
Voting closed 21

The Friday screech has arrived.

up
Voting closed 23

Ah, much like beauty, this is in the eye of the beholder.

up
Voting closed 19

Literally every neighboring house on that street has a roof deck, including the house of one of the people suing. Hypocrisy is a dish best served steaming hot.

up
Voting closed 78

You can poison trees yourself if they're blocking your view. But you need the lawyers in order to poison a deck.

up
Voting closed 24

Oh, but that invokes the ponderous and terrifying powers of TREE LAW.
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4wrMxuWsAUgZ89?format=jpg&name=large)

up
Voting closed 24

There was an SJC decision a few years back upholding the "Massachusetts rule" for trimming back trees extending over somebody else's property - against that upstart "Hawaii rule."

up
Voting closed 27

includes at least two roof decks...

I love irony.

up
Voting closed 28

This is why you don't buy a $5M house in a neighborhood full of $20M houses...you're the poor. They'll abuse you however they please.

up
Voting closed 37

Who both filmed there.

up
Voting closed 25

It might be a little thin on plot, but Steve McQueen in "The Thomas Crown Affair", the film I assume you are referring to, was coolness personified. By the way, that's a great film to watch to see what 1960s Boston looked like. Even the airport and the Pru's original design with the outdoor walkways look fantastic.

up
Voting closed 26

of mid-century modern style. The split screens, Dunaway's clothes, the jazzy music.

up
Voting closed 18

Hilliard and Hawthorne sat on the roof on Friday evenings drinking grappa and occasionally smoking weed which grew wild in the Back Bay which had not yet been completely filled.

up
Voting closed 22

Both groups have vacation homes elsewhere should they want more privacy and/or an outdoor patio.

up
Voting closed 23

Well, you'd have to be to file a suit like this.

up
Voting closed 19