ZBA: Hearing On Contested Garage Conversion At Corner Of Strong And East Pleasant Continued Until March 25
Garage at corner of Strong Street and East Pleasant Street where a conversion to two apartments has been proposed. Photo: Hilda Greenbaum
Report on the Meeting of the Zoning Board Of Appeals (2/11/21)
The meeting was held via Zoom and was recorded and can be viewed here.
Participating: ZBA members: Steven Judge (Chair), Tammy Parks, Joan O’Meara, Dillon Maxfield, Keith Langsdale, Associate Member Craig Meadows (replaces O’Meara for 275 E. Pleasant Street hearing)
Also present: Attorney Joel Bard (Town Counsel), Bucky Sparkle (Project Engineer for the owner, Pioneer Property Services LLC), Attorney Thomas Reidy (representing the abutters)
The public hearing for the conversion of a mid-century detached garage to a non-owner occupied rental unit at 275 East Pleasant Street was continued for yet another month to March 25 at 6 p.m. because ZBA members had not received the packet of submitted new materials, which had been mailed on the previous Monday, February 8. The present meeting was a continuation from January 28 for the same reason: members were not given enough time to read and digest new information before the hearing. (All documents had been submitted to staff by February 3 as had been decided at the last meeting, but the post office had not delivered the packets in time.)
For previous reporting on this hearing look here The site plans and other documents are available online but difficult to read on a computer screen.
The application before the ZBA is for conversion of a pre-1964 garage to a second dwelling unit on a lot that is non-conforming as to area and setback. The lot area is less than 16,000 square feet but 26,000 is required, and there is basically no setback from either East Pleasant Street or Strong Street. The ZBA has been asked to make the finding that this conversion to rental housing would not be significantly more detrimental to the neighborhood than its current use as a garage for parking and storage, along with usual findings for compliance with Section 10.38 of the bylaw.
The meeting began with public comment from 11 abutters who presented reasons that this conversion is different in character from, and not compatible with, existing uses in the neighborhood, which consists mostly of single-family homes. Along with 17 more letters from abutters, the testimony was for the most part a reiteration of previous objections.
Civil Engineer Bucky Sparkle, representing the owners of the parcel, provided rebuttal to the brief submitted by Attorney Thomas Reidy, representing the abutters. Sparkle noted that the Town Engineer had reviewed the drainage plans and deemed them adequate to handle run-off from the property. He showed updated plans for the basement of the building, which would be divided into a locked utility room and an area for tenant storage. He reiterated that all of the lighting fixtures are dark-sky compliant, and the screening fence will be enlarged enough to block headlights from shining on the eastern abutter. The owner has agreed to a total of no more than five bedrooms in the two dwellings, that any tenants in the converted garage would be related, and that the re-designed parking plan would be safer than the existing situation.
The Board decided to get a review of the drainage plan from another engineer, as allowed under the zoning bylaw, with the cost to be borne by the owner.
The objectionable aspect of this project will not be solved because of improved drainage, basement storage, dark-sky compliant lighting, or “limiting” the bedrooms in a converted garage to five. The problem is allowing extreme densification so close to an already overburdened intersection, so close to a school that may soon be 2 schools, and even though the ZBA doesn’t consider precedents, it lowers the bar even more, on how much overstuffing we allow in our neighborhoods. The Zoning Board of Appeals should not demean what zoning is supposed to do, which is to set standards for the appropriate use of land. The burden of proof should not be that the non conforming change to an already non conforming situation isn’t “significantly more detrimental.”