Board approves variance to convert 2119 Burdett Avenue into three-unit rental

Local board (unnamed in transcript) ยท December 4, 2025

Loading...

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

At a recent board meeting, members approved variance PLZBA2025004848 to convert 2119 Burdett Avenue from a former dental office into a three-unit residential building after finding hardship and issuing a negative declaration for the listed environmental action.

At a meeting, the board voted to approve variance PLZBA2025004848 allowing the property at 2119 Burdett Avenue to be converted into a three-unit rental. Speaker 1 moved the approval, and members recorded affirmative votes from the voting members present.

The applicant, Speaker 2, told the board it had submitted a business plan and designs for the remodeled property and said, "It would now be a triplex, which I think fits in the neighborhood." Speaker 2 also said the family had faced a difficult few years and that the approval "brings it to closure."

Before the variance vote, Speaker 3 asked the board to find PLCBA2025-0048 an "unlisted seeker action with sufficient information available for a negative declaration." Speaker 1 seconded that motion and the board voted in favor. The board then considered the variance application itself; Speaker 1 summarized the hardship findings the board said it relied on, including that the property could not provide a reasonable return without the variance and that the hardship was presented as unique to the parcel. Speaker 1 stated the requested variance "will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood," noting the presence of other apartments and student housing nearby.

Speaker 4 asked legal counsel whether an affirmative vote would create a binding precedent. Speaker 5 (legal counsel) replied that "each application for use variance has to meet the test on its own merits" and that an approval "would not be a binding precedent," though future applicants could argue that a past approval was persuasive. Speaker 3 asked that the board put on the record that it did not intend this decision to set precedent; legal counsel said such a statement clarifies intent but does not bind future boards.

The motion to approve the variance passed with all voting members present recorded in favor. After the vote Speaker 2 thanked the board for its consideration. The meeting adjourned following a standard motion to close the session.