By George P. Hassett

The tree beat the condos. In a battle pitting a 14-unit condo development against a single tree, the tree has prevailed.

The developers of 343-347 Summer Street, had seen their project delayed by lawsuits from the neighborhood for six years but were coming off a legal victory and had only one obstacle in their way before cashing in with new West Somerville condo’s: a single tree that had to come down for construction of a fire lane.

But the tree will continue to stand on Summer Street after Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone refused to accommodate the developers and declined to remove it. The decision was left up to Curtatone because of neighborhood complaints about the development.

The developers of the condo project, Dakota Partners (formerly Emerald Development Group) have filed a lawsuit against Curtatone and the city in connection with their refusal to take down the tree.

Marc Daigle, of Dakota Partners, declined to comment for this story and his partner Terry Morrison did not return phone calls before deadline.

Dr. Mohammed Hanif Butt, an orthodontist who lives directly next to the site, has fought against the project for years and said the tree did what his lawsuits couldn’t: keep Dakota from building 14 two-bedroom luxury condos inches away from his home at 341 Summer St.

“[The developers] will have to reduce the size of the building now. This is a pretty big win for the neighborhood,” he said.

Hawkins said Curtatone has made adding trees to the city a priority and did not want to change that simply to accommodate a developer.

The empty lot on Summer Street behind the Dilboy VFW Post has been a source of anger and contention in the neighborhood since the city first issued building permits in June 2002. Alderman-at-Large John M. “Jack” Connolly supported the project over some neighbors objections to its size and, according to Butt, paid a price.

Butt said he believes Connolly’s pro-development stance is the reason he lost his Ward 6 seat in 2005 to Rebekah L. Gewirtz. ‚ÄúWe were very upset with Jack in the neighborhood. This was the big issue he lost my vote over. Why did he fight for the developers?‚Äù Butt said. Connolly regained a citywide seat on the board last year.

Butt said Connolly pushed the project through city boards whose members followed his recommendation without ever looking at the details of the project. Gewirtz has opposed the development in its current state and supported Butt.

“In my opinion a wrong was clearly done to the neighborhood. The boards that reviewed the development should have done more to consider the concerns of the neighborhood,” Gewirtz said.

Butt sued to get the project stopped but lost in the Superior Judicial Court last year when a judge ruled in favor of the developers. He said he had spent $100,000 on legal fees during the case.

Attorney Richard Digirolamo, who represents Dakota in their dealings with the Zoning Board but is not involved in the lawsuit against the city, said his clients have acted responsibly.

Connolly said he favored the development because it was residential as opposed to commercial and offered the city a way to bring in tax revenue from what was, and still is, an empty lot.

“We have lost a lot of needed tax revenue over the years,” he said. Connolly said he never pushed the project but only offered his opinion when asked.

Dakota first bought the property in 2001 from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority at an auction for $670,000. According to Butt, they plan to sell each unit for $450,000.

‚ÄúThey’re going to make such a big profit anyway, I don’t know why they won’t just work with the neighbors, scale back the size and get it done,‚Äù he said.