Applicant withdraws 54 Lawrence Street conversion request after ZBA cites footnote 8 prohibition

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An applicant seeking to convert 54 Lawrence Street from a single-family to a two-family dwelling withdrew the petition without prejudice after the board said an existing zoning footnote (footnote 8) prohibits special permits for such conversions on nonconforming lots.

An applicant seeking permission to convert a single-family house at 54 Lawrence Street into a two-family dwelling withdrew his application without prejudice on May 14 after extended legal discussion about a zoning footnote that the board said prohibits such conversions on nonconforming lots.

Nicholas (referred to in the hearing as Nicholas Micheli) argued that his project complied with lot-coverage limits and other dimensional regulations and that state law (Chapter 40A, Section 6) and several court decisions gave the board discretion to approve alterations to preexisting nonconforming structures. He presented satellite images and notarized neighbor support showing that most houses on Lawrence Street already are two- or three-family buildings.

Board members and the ZBA’s legal advisors focused on “footnote 8,” a local zoning table footnote the board read as an explicit prohibition against granting a special permit for conversion from single-family to two-family where the lot or structure is nonconforming. Multiple board members said the footnote prevents them from approving this special-permit conversion regardless of the applicant’s arguments about lot coverage or neighborhood character. The applicant said he is pursuing a legislative remedy and had raised the issue with the Planning Board; one city councilor in attendance, Lior Malek, said council members are discussing possible zoning changes.

After the board discussed options — including redesign to seek a variance under Section 10 or awaiting a bylaw amendment — the applicant moved to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The board approved that withdrawal; the applicant may refile if the bylaw changes or substantial new evidence emerges. No roll-call vote on the withdrawal was recorded in the transcript.