Planning Board opposes zoning change that would allow reinstatement of lapsed two-family uses

The Woburn City Planning Board voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council on a proposed zoning amendment that would allow single- and two-family structures that have lost legal nonconforming status under Section 7.4 to apply for reinstatement by special permit.

The proposal was presented to the board by Ryan Douglas, attorney at Rubin and Rudman, representing CB Silva LLC and the owner of 4345 Church Street. Douglas described the property's permit history, said the owner had taken title in exchange for unpaid contractor work valued at about $350,000, and asked the board to forward the amendment so the City Council could consider creating a discretionary pathway for reinstatement. "This keeps full discretion in the hands of the city," Douglas said.

The petition would allow owners of qualifying single- and two-family structures whose nonconforming status lapsed under Section 7.4 to apply for reinstatement only by special permit from the City Council; any needed variances would still require action by the Board of Appeals, the presenter said. Douglas said the property at 4345 Church Street had been approved as a two-family in 2020 but that work stopped and the legal nonconforming status had lapsed; a February request to the Historic Commission under the ordinance's Section 29 found the building did not meet historic-significance criteria.

Board members raised safety and precedent concerns during discussion. One board member, citing conversations with longtime local contractors, said the structure appeared to be "the most unsafe structure" those contractors had inspected and argued the existing ordinance language should remain. Planning Board Chair John (first name used in the record) noted that the board could continue the public hearing to consult the building inspector and the applicant's attorney or send a neutral/concerned recommendation to council; another member warned the amendment could open the door for many similar applications across the city.

Rob Pine, a Planning Board member, questioned whether the request was driven by business decisions rather than community benefit and said of the building, "it looks like it's gonna blow over in a good windstorm." The applicant's lawyer and other supporters disputed the characterization and said municipal records show the building's structural 'bones' were deemed safe when a permit was issued four years ago and that the owner seeks only to finish previously approved two-family renovation work rather than increase density.

After discussion, the board closed the public hearing and took a formal vote. Motion by Dave to send an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council, seconded by Kevin, carried 4-0.

Discussion (not a board decision) included: (1) the site's permit and ownership history (2017 denial of a three-family proposal; 2020 approval for a two-family that was not completed); (2) the owner's claim of approximately $350,000 owed by the prior developer and that title transferred in lieu of payment; (3) a February historic-commission determination that the structure did not qualify as historically significant; (4) a reading by the applicant that Section 7.4's two-year abandonment rule leaves owners no path to request relief under current language; and (5) board concerns about setting a precedent and the building's safety.

Decision: The board's formal action was to send an unfavorable recommendation on the proposed amendment to the City Council (vote 4-0). The board did not adopt any interim changes to Section 7.4 or set a follow-up direction to staff beyond the options discussed (continue hearing to consult building inspector, send neutral recommendation, or send favorable/unfavorable recommendation).

The City Council is the permit-granting authority for zoning amendments and special permits; the Planning Board's unfavorable recommendation will be included in the council's record for its consideration.

Sources: Presentation by Ryan Douglas (attorney for CB Silva LLC), public hearing testimony and Planning Board discussion at the Woburn City Planning Board meeting.