A legal spat between the city and the Chinese Christian Church of New England has come to a head over a parking lot serving Tufts Medical Center.

The Tyler Street Lot sits just east of Tufts Medical Center and is owned by the Chinese Christian Church of New England (CCCNE), which leases it to Tufts for patient valet services.

Today that lot is inaccessible to anybody, a temporary hold that became permanent on July 30 and is currently under appeal in the Suffolk County Superior Court. The lot used to serve not just Tufts patients but also members of the St. James The Greater Church and the Buds and Blossoms Child Care and Early Education Center.

The trouble began in 2022, when the Boston Air Pollution Control Commission (BAPCC) notified Tufts that the Tyler Street Lot seemingly lacked a permit exempting it from the city’s parking freeze.

The parking area in question has two entrances, one at 50 Tyler Street and another at 50 Hudson Street. Despite the connection, the lot is in fact two separate legal entities, which the CCCNE says were counted together in a 1987 BAPCC permit for the Hudson Street Lot.

Tufts Medical Center applied in November, 2023 to resolve the administrative discrepancy and get separate permits for the two legal parking entities, getting unanimous approval for the Hudson Street Lot in the BAPCC’s December 13 meeting.

The Tyler Street Lot, however, proved much more contentious. That meeting’s minutes note that commission members were reluctant to “reward” what they viewed as a parking violation, and public comment included opposition from the Chinatown Community Land Trust, Chinese Progressive Association, the Friends of Reggie Wong Park and the Boston Climate Action Network, with the St. James the Greater Church in support.

The Commission ultimately decided to deny the Tyler Street Lot’s application but delay enforcement until July 30 to give the owners and users time to find alternatives.

The CCCNE filed a legal appeal to that decision with the Suffolk County Superior Court on July 11, alleging that the hearing it was given “demonstrated nothing but an unfair and biased process.”

It claims that the parking application met all required elements under BAPCC regulations, something the commission seems to have pushed back on somewhat during the meeting.

It also notes that the commission eventually characterized it as a new application, despite the lot operating for years as a portion of the spots approved for the Hudson Street Lot. Documentation submitted with its appeal seems to prove that those 28 spots were specifically approved by the city back in 1983.

“The BAPCC hearing allowed lengthy and irrelevant comments by opponents to dominate the hearing, limiting the applicant’s opportunity to present their position adequately, and ignored or publicly undercounter the many oral and written comments submitted by supporters,” says the CCCNE’s appeal.

The CCCNE also says it has not received notice of the decision in writing or any basis for the denial. It alleges that the BAPCC denied it because they would prefer the lot to be a public park, something outside of the commission’s jurisdiction that an opposed committee member did publicly dispute during the hearing.

City officials declined to comment on the case or confirm the authenticity of any evidence submitted by the CCCNE, noting that it’s against city policy to speak about ongoing litigation.

The CCCNE itself did not respond to requests to comment on this article.