Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee seeks city-solicitor opinion on proposed amendment to sections 7.3/7.4 for abandoned single‑ and two‑family dwellings
Summary
CB Silver LLC asked the ordinance committee to permit the city council to grant special permits to restore abandoned nonconforming single‑ and two‑family homes that have lost status under the two‑year lapse rule in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the zoning ordinance.
CB Silver LLC sought an amendment to Woburn’s zoning ordinance that would allow the city council to act as the special‑permit granting authority to reinstate abandoned nonconforming single‑ and two‑family residences in the city’s residential districts (R‑1 through R‑4 and S‑1). Under current ordinance language cited by the petitioner, a residential nonconforming use that is unused for two years loses its nonconforming status under sections 7.3/7.4, and a later attempt to restore the prior use would be subject to current zoning (including dimensional requirements and ZBA variances).
Attorney Tabby told the committee the property at issue obtained title in March 2024 and that a now-lapsed 2020 building permit for a two‑family renovation left the owner unable to complete the permitted project. After a Historic Commission determination the property did not qualify for relief there, the petitioner said the only remaining option was an ordinance amendment to allow council review on a case‑by‑case basis for reinstating residential uses.
Councilors questioned whether the amendment would create a loophole that encourages speculative delay or enable conversions beyond the intended scale. Several councillors raised a specific concern about the interaction with a recent state accessory‑dwelling‑unit (ADU) law: they asked whether a special permit granted under the proposed amendment could be followed by an ADU application that increased unit counts beyond two. Attorney Tabby and multiple councilors noted the draft amendment would apply only to single‑ and two‑family homes and leave dimensional variance authority with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Several members asked for a legal opinion and for more detail on how many properties might be affected before any ordinance change.
By voice vote, the committee approved a motion to request a written legal opinion from City Solicitor Salvaty on the legality and likely impacts of the proposed amendment; the committee left the matter in committee pending that opinion and additional analysis.
