Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves variance allowing three‑unit addition at 18 Abbott Street over objections
Summary
The Zoning Board approved a variance allowing Florence Properties LLC to add three units to an existing four‑unit building at 18 Abbott Street (RB zone). The decision was 4‑1 with member Robert Shaw opposed; neighbors raised parking and scale concerns.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 4‑1 on Oct. 12 to grant a variance allowing Florence Properties LLC to construct a three‑unit, three‑story addition on an existing four‑unit building at 18 Abbott Street in the RB zoning district.
Attorney Brad Westgate, representing Florence Properties, told the board the property contains 17,446 square feet and that the project would add three modest units (about 792 square feet each) to create a total of seven units. The application sought relief from the RB district’s minimum lot area requirement (43,560 square feet required, 17,446 existing).
Westgate and project engineer Paul Chisholm said the property is unusual: it fronts on three streets, sits next to larger multifamily parcels and nonresidential uses, and has sufficient open space and coverage ratios under other dimensional standards. The team presented two parking layouts — one with 11 spaces primarily off Abbott Street and an alternate that included spaces off French Street — and said the plan would improve the existing, noncompliant parking configuration.
Neighbors testified in opposition, citing increased traffic, overnight parking, and loss of light/green space. Diana Tulla of 17 Merrimack Street said the addition would be “looming” and “intrusive.” Longtime resident Anthony Pasquale and a written letter from Nabeel and Hannah Abahu (20 Abbot Street) described ongoing overnight parking and enforcement problems in the neighborhood and asked that existing issues be resolved before adding units.
Board members debated the variance criteria. Those in favor pointed to the lot’s size, three frontages and surrounding higher‑density uses; they found the proposal consistent with the ordinance’s infill objectives. Member Robert Shaw voted against the variance, citing concerns about the immediate impact on adjacent properties. The chair’s motion to approve was seconded and passed with one dissent. The board noted that site plan review and planning board approvals — including screening, sidewalks and final parking configuration — remain to be completed through the planning process. A 30‑day appeal period was announced.
