Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conversion Commercial To Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA allows conversion of two ground‑floor commercial units to four apartments at Ninth and Bedford with reduced parking aisle and screening conditions
Summary
The board approved converting two vacant commercial units into four one‑bedroom apartments, allowing reduced parking aisle width and 17‑foot space lengths in places, and required site plan review and a screened dumpster.
Get email alerts on the Conversion Commercial To Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a special permit allowing Ninth in Bedford, LLC to convert two vacant ground‑floor commercial units in a preexisting mixed‑use building at Ninth and Bedford streets into four one‑bedroom apartments, bringing the building to a ten‑unit residential building overall and approving reduced parking dimensions subject to conditions.
Attorney Peter Salino told the board the applicant had tried several approaches to occupy the ground floor commercially but had no takers. The owner proposed converting the two commercial units into four one‑bedroom apartments, resulting in a total of ten units with one parking space per unit. Salino said the building currently has six units upstairs and the proposal would add four on the ground floor; the petitioner proposed 10 parking spaces and requested waivers to allow some spaces to be 17 feet in length and to reduce the travel aisle width in areas where parking is only on one side.
Planning staff and the board discussed current on‑site parking patterns and observed that the neighborhood’s peak uses are offset, which historically reduces overnight parking demand. The applicant agreed to provide a screened dumpster and to conduct site plan review; the board conditioned approval on those items and found the change not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood given the conversion would provide residential use where commercial tenancy had failed.
The motion passed unanimously by members present. The board noted the applicant’s related entity owns an adjacent building and that some parking bleed‑over exists, but the onsite parking plan and conditions satisfied board concerns.

