Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Housing Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA continues appeal over conversion of 54 Lawrence Street, asks applicant to supply legal memo on footnote 8
Summary
The board continued an appeal of Building Commissioner Fred Bray’s denial of a building permit for conversion of 54 Lawrence Street to a two-family, citing a conflict between local footnote 8 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A §6; applicant was given until May 14 to provide legal authority or withdraw.
The Framingham City Zoning Board of Appeals on April 9 continued an appeal by Nicholas Miceli of Building Commissioner Fred Bray’s denial of a building permit to convert 54 Lawrence Street from a single-family to a two-family dwelling. The board asked the applicant to return in May with legal analysis supporting his argument that Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 6, allows the board to grant a special permit despite the local zoning footnote that the building commissioner relied on.
Miceli, who said he has lived three houses down for 32 years, presented engineered plot plans, architectural drawings and neighborhood support. He told members the proposed conversion would raise the lot coverage from 18.2% to about 19.4%, well under the 35% maximum, and that the structure’s nonconforming setbacks date to the home’s 1917 construction. Miceli asked the board to interpret state law to permit the change rather than require variances under Section 10.
Board members agreed the application was well documented but said footnote 8 in the city zoning (identified in the application as section 4‑35‑7, footnote 8) appears to bar the board from granting a special permit for conversions on nonconforming lots. Several members said they were sympathetic to Miceli’s position but felt constrained by the local bylaw’s language and recent precedent. The board discussed possible remedies — a legal appeal in court or a change to the local bylaw through the city legislative process — but said both could be time-consuming and expensive.
The board offered Miceli a continuance to the May 14 meeting so he could present a written legal memorandum or case law showing that Chapter 40A §6 should override the local footnote 8 in this instance. Members noted an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) appears to be an as‑of‑right path in some cases and suggested the applicant consider that route if he prefers a faster approval path.
A motion to continue the hearing to May 14, 2025, was made and approved by voice roll call.
