Planning board recommends historic‑preservation special‑permit zoning amendment to city council

The Gardner City Planning Board on April 16 voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a zoning amendment creating a historic‑preservation special permit that would allow property‑specific relief to encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of designated historic structures.

Attorney Christine Tree, representing petitioner Chair City Church, presented the ordinance change and said the amendment would allow the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to grant relief — including limited use allowances, dimensional variances, parking and signage modifications — to properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) or the Gardner inventory of historic assets. "This petition is ... a zoning amendment. I am presenting it on behalf of the petitioner, Chair City Church, Pastor Dave Fralongo," Tree said during the hearing.

Nut Graf: The amendment is written as an incentive to preserve architectural and cultural features by permitting case‑by‑case exceptions through a special permit rather than creating blanket regulatory restrictions. Proponents said it would make it easier to reuse historic buildings — including the petitioner’s property at 100 Central Street, a former convent that the church plans to adapt for a cafe, meeting rooms and social‑service uses — while giving the city a process to attach preservation conditions and record them at the registry of deeds.

Board members and advisory participants described the key mechanics: an applicant must show the property is eligible (on MACRIS, the National Register, or the Gardner inventory); the ZBA would issue the special permit; the Gardner Historical Commission would receive the application and get 60 days to provide a written recommendation; and the ZBA could attach conditions intended to preserve historic features. Tree emphasized that approval of the zoning amendment would not remove other approvals the project needs, saying the petitioner would still have to seek a special permit for any particular project.

City Solicitor Vincent Busiteri urged using the existing, established special‑permit criteria rather than inventing a novel legal standard, saying the familiar rule set is easier for boards to apply and less likely to generate litigation. "With the special permit criteria that you already have, it's tried and true," Busiteri said, adding that the amendment was intended as an incentive rather than an exaction. He recommended careful attention to any preservation easement terms and suggested considering time limits on permanent restrictions so future generations are not overburdened.

Chris Perron, a member of the Gardner Historical Commission, told the board the commission supports the approach in principle and offered to refine recommended procedures, noting that the commission had discussed preservation‑easement concerns. "We are in favor of this proposal," Perron said.

Proponents used the petitioner’s 100 Central Street property as an example: Tree and the applicant described ornate, well‑preserved interior features on the first floor that the church hopes to open for a high‑end coffee/tea cafe, three meeting rooms for community use, and social‑service programs on upper floors and possibly in the basement. Tree said the project anticipates between 97 and 103 combined parking spaces shared with the adjacent Sacred Heart property, and that the project’s multiple principal uses on one lot are not fully covered by the current mixed‑use provisions in Gardner City’s ordinance, which is one reason the amendment is needed.

The draft amendment would add definitions (historic structure, historic site, preservation project), expand applicability to all zoning districts, and allow the ZBA to authorize uses otherwise permitted by special permit in other residential or commercial districts (excluding industrial uses). It would also explicitly permit parking and signage relief as part of a special permit and clarify cross‑references to sections 7.40 and 11.70 of the city zoning code. Tree said she provided a redline and final text to the board and that the proposed procedure attempts to avoid duplicative processes by using existing inventories and the Historical Commission’s existing authority.

Tree and others said MACRIS lists roughly 243 items city‑wide; Tree estimated about 33 properties on that list might realistically pursue redevelopment under the proposed special permit. She and the Historical Commission suggested documentation requirements (written statement of significance, photos, age threshold in some cases) to populate the local inventory.

After the public‑hearing presentation and discussion, a board member moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment as presented. The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor; the transcript records the motion passed but does not record a roll‑call tally.

Ending: The Planning Board’s recommendation advances the amendment to the City Council. If Council adoption follows, property owners with eligible historic structures would be able to pursue case‑by‑case special permits that can include conditions intended to preserve historic features; the Historical Commission will play a written‑recommendation role and preservation conditions would be recorded at the registry of deeds. Any individual project would still require its own special‑permit review and applicable permits.