Last week the Somerville News reported on Craigie Street residents’ objection to an oversized residential project proposed by its developer, Alderman Sean O’Donovan, and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). We reported that “Alderman Thomas F. Taylor spoke against the project at public meetings, complaining of the project’s density, design and an increase in traffic it may cause.”

Curiously, Alderman Taylor, or any other alderman, could have blocked this development through a maneuver that Mr. Taylor has observed and often voted to support during his 20 years on the Board. To explain this option, I need to review a little zoning law.

Municipal zoning laws include a Table of Uses that specifies what types of buildings serving what types of uses are allowed in each zoning district. For example, in a Residence A district, you can have only a one- or two-unit house.

Before 1975, a city or town could completely waive its own restrictions on use for any development where it chose to do so. In that year, the Legislature passed the Massachusetts Zoning Act, replacing the zoning sections in Massachusetts General Laws. The Act eliminated use variances, unless the city’s or town’s zoning ordinance explicitly gave the Board of Appeals authority to grant them.

In 1978, Somerville’s Board of Aldermen repealed the city ordinance that gives the ZBA this authority. For the next 12 years, there were no use variances.

1990 saw a major rewrite to Somerville zoning law. This rewrite allowed residential use variances by another name. It created a Density Bonus Special Permit, which allowed the Zoning Board of Appeals to waive density limitations in Residence A, B, and C districts if the developer made 10% (now 12½ %) or more of the units affordable, or made a cash contribution.

I believe that the concept is a good one, but the law is flawed. It specifies no limit on the amount of increased density that the ZBA can grant. This is why so many ugly residential developments, much too big for their lots and neighborhoods, were built after 1990 and joined those that were built before 1978. The two blocks that comprise Craigie Street are home to four of these, one of which stands next to Alderman O’Donovan’s development site. Over one hundred neighbors, weary of such abuse, signed a petition opposing the project.

Through this flawed provision, many developers have realized a financial bonanza. But the benefit to the city in increased affordable housing has been minimal. Alderman O’Donovan intends to add his project to this list of moneymakers. The lot’s Residence B zoning would and should limit him to three units. But he proposed, and the ZBA approved, eight units.

There is a way that any alderman could have blocked this. An alderman can submit a proposal to amend or repeal any ordinance that would allow the development to go forward. For example, Tom Taylor could have submitted a proposal to fix the flaw in the Density Bonus Special Permits section of the zoning ordinance.

As soon as such a motion is filed and published, city staff, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals must all make their decisions as if it were already law. Until this is resolved, no bank or responsible investor will finance the project, and the developer must cover the carrying costs, change the nature of the project, or move on.

Many aldermen have done this many times, the most notorious being former Ward 2 Alderman Bob Callahan. Tom Taylor is well aware of this option, because he voted to support such maneuvers in the past. In fact, he was central to one of them.

Toward the end of the Dorothy Kelly Gay administration, a development proposed for Aldersey Street had issues identical to those of the Craigie Street project. There, as on Craigie Street, neighbors mobilized. But there, unlike Craigie Street, Tom Taylor and Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay vigorously and effectively opposed it. Gay proposed and Taylor submitted an amendment to the Historic District Ordinance that blocked the Aldersey Street property.

So why didn’t Tom Taylor take equally effective action on Craigie Street? I don’t think that it’s because Aldersey is just two blocks from his own home. I think the more likely explanation is that Sean O’Donovan is his brother alderman.

The Board of Alderman has abandoned its legal and moral role as a governing and deliberative body. It has become a cozy clique whose members challenge neither the status quo, the mayor, nor each other. This is yet another example of why it’s past time to change the city’s charter and political culture.

I think that there are hints of additional motivation for Mr. Taylor’s inaction. Unlike Mayor Gay, Mayor Curtatone took no position on his former campaign chairman’s development.