ZBA Continues Hearing On Contested Garage Conversion

The Zoning Board Of Appeals meeting of January 28 was held via Zoom and can be viewed here.

Participating:Board Members: Steven Judge (Chair), Tammy Parks, Joan O’Meara, Dillon Maxfield, and Keith Langsdale, Associate Member Craig Meadows (replaced O’Meara for the 275 E. Pleasant St. hearing) 

Also present: Joel Bard, Town Counsel; Rob Morra, Building Inspector; Bucky Sparkle, Project Engineer for Pioneer Property Services LLC; Thomas Reidy (attorney representing abutters)

A public hearing for the conversion of a mid-century detached garage to a non-owner-occupied three-bedroom rental unit at 275 East Pleasant Street (at the southeast corner of Strong Street) resumed from a hearing on January 7. Following discussion, the hearing was continued for another two weeks to February 11 at 6 PM because ZBA members required more clarifications before deciding whether to approve the project on a lot that does not mean size regulations (26,000 square feet are required; it is less than 16,000 square feet) and setback regulations (there is very little setback from Strong Street).

The Board must determine, among other things, whether the conversion to rental housing will be more detrimental to the neighborhood than its current use as a garage. 

Members complained that they had received many of the key documents just minutes before the meeting, and that it is important to receive such documents at least one week before a meeting. New information for the continued hearing must be submitted to Town Hall by February 3.

At least 10 abutters testified against the conversion, raising the following issues:

• no non-owner-occupied rentals exist at present in the immediate neighborhood; the only rental properties there are two one-bedroom accessory apartments (on Wildwood Lane and Mt. Pleasant Street) in owner-occupied houses;
• Four people already live in the existing house and adding four renters (and their guests) to the lot would be too many people;
• A large brush pile on the eastern boundary of the property has not been removed as promised months ago by the owner; 
• The additional noise from renters would be detrimental; 
• They would prefer a “mixed-income owner-occupied dwelling”;
• The neighborhood has changed significantly recently due to the conversion of residences on East Pleasant Street to student housing;
• This conversion would set a precedent for more student housing in the neighborhood;
• To allow this “one-time dimensional waiver” to violates the intent of the bylaw;
• This is a “bad project in the wrong place.”

Attorney Thomas Reidy, representing the abutters, outlined the legislative history of the 1986 Bylaw Amendment that allows for a one-time dimensional waiver, in order to show that a waiver would not be “in concert with that purpose” of the bylaw amendment. He also identified items which, he said, are necessary for ZBA to conduct a comprehensive review, but still have not been provided by the applicant. He also suggested that the Board must prove that the project complies with Sections 9.22 (that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure) and 10.38 (findings of suitability in the town and neighborhood). In addition, he outlined specific findings to support denial of the application.

Reidy reported that the May 1, 1986 report of the Planning Board to Town Meeting established that the intent of this amendment was to give boards some flexibility to allow “adding a small number of rental units” while protecting the character of a neighborhood. Most of the homes in the Town center were built before the Zoning Bylaw was enacted, and some of them are on large lots that are just a few feet shy of the Bylaw’s dimensional requirement, and might be suitable for conversion without being detrimental to the neighborhood. Also, the proposed use is different in character and effect on the neighborhood than a two-car garage.

Project Engineer Bucky Sparkle rebutted comments from the previous session and noted that the owner has agreed to divide the basement into a mechanical area and a tenants’ storage area. The owner agreed to cut the size of the parking lot to four cars (at 2 spaces per unit) from eight and reduce the number of bedrooms from three to two. He promised not to rent to students and would try to rent to families, and would advertise the units as “undergraduates are permitted but not desired.” A resident manager, required in non-owner occupied rental units, would have references and training as specified by the zoning bylaw.

Sparkle stated that all of the electrical fixtures are dark-sky compliant and that a lighting engineer “laughed at him” when he tried to fulfill the Board’s requirement for a photometric plan because, he said, this is usually required only for commercial uses. Sparkle alleged that many of the abutters’ complaints were “logical fallacies” in that adding one rental unit to 69 dwelling units would not change the character of the neighborhood and that it is “ridiculous” to require a professional residential manager in a duplex. He also refuted the allegation that an owner living on a property “guarantees” good stewardship, which can be guaranteed only by enforceable conditions on a special permit. He asserted that the owner is improving the aesthetics of the property by repairing and painting the building, improving the drainage, providing sufficient parking on a hard surface with safe egress onto Strong Street, and upgrading the lighting.

Sparkle said he believes the 35-year-old amendment is out of date, and that a gravel driveway already exists on the property and the surface water calculations would not change. Lastly, he said, allowing this use will not set a precedent because the Zoning Board of Appeals is not bound by precedent.

During the Board’s time to comment or ask questions, Judge noted that there are no existing standards for calculating or defining adequate drainage mitigation. Maxfield wanted to know if prohibiting undergraduates from renting the unit is legal and enforceable. Attorney Bard replied that students are not a “protected” category and limiting the tenants to families would be a distinction asked by the landlord, not imposed by the Board. As to enforcement, Building Inspector Morra replied that enforcement would be a challenge which they have not yet faced. He said he cannot even ask, legally, if tenants are related to each other. The information would have to be provided to the Town for enforcement, which could be a condition of a special permit. 

Board member Tammy Parks noted that not all undergraduates are the same and she would not approve any anti-student condition. Sparkle said the landlord has the incentive to maintain his property and select the right tenants to protect his investment. 

The ZBA asked more questions, and made more comments related to outstanding issues with this property owner, which erodes trust that he will fulfill his promises.

No “planting plan” was provided for this application other than to replace grass where cars are currently parked and to construct a rain garden to mitigate drainage onto abutting properties. Planting plans and conditions for maintenance are typically required as part of a Site Plan Review and Special Permit application.

The hearing will be continued on February 11 to allow the Board time to review Reidy’s letter and to assess a range of issues including storm water flow, impact of the garage being so close to the roadway, impact on children going to and from nearby Wildwood Elementary School, why the garage isn’t being used for parking, which was promised by the owner, whether having twice as many people on the property balances the advantages of having enforceable conditions on a Special Permit, and whether safety will be improved by a new paved parking area vs. using the existing gravel parking lot on the south side.