Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Text Change 1241 East Main topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs text change to allow limited conversion of rooftop mechanical penthouses to housing after narrow vote
Summary
The board approved a text amendment to allow the conversion of existing mechanical penthouses into habitable units when conversions do not increase building height or footprint; the motion passed 3–1 after debate about whether converting nonconforming vertical space violates the spirit of nonconforming rules.
The planning board voted on Oct. 28 to recommend a text change clarifying how legally nonconforming rooftop mechanical structures may be converted to habitable floor area without increasing a building’s height or footprint.
Lisa Feinberg, an attorney for 1241 East Main Street Associates LLC, said the proposed amendment to Section 10 would treat rooftop mechanical penthouses the same way the regulations currently treat parking garages that are converted to residential use: if the change does not increase the physical height or footprint of the building, the previously exempted space may be repurposed without creating a new nonconformity. Feinberg described a developer proposal to convert an existing penthouse on a former office building into three apartments as part of a broader reuse of the property into housing. "Because this type of change does not actually increase the size of the physical structure, the zoning regulations permit this change to a nonconforming building," she said.
Board discussion was split. Ravi said he was reluctant to approve a broad rule that would allow conversion of nonconforming height into residential space, noting the board typically evaluates nonconforming requests holistically and is cautious about further aggravating nonconformity. "I'm somewhat reluctant to approve the text change ... that would allow that broadly," he said. Supporters argued the amendment closes an oversight that prevents adaptive reuse of legally nonconforming features that do not change exterior massing.
After debate, the planning board approved the text change by a narrow margin (three in favor, one opposed). Staff indicated the change would allow similar future conversions only where the conversion reuses existing structure and does not increase building dimensions; applicants would still need to show compliance with other code provisions and permit conditions.
Next steps: the recommended text change moves forward to the formal adoption process and any required zoning hearings.
