A hesitant Marion Zoning Board of Appeals reluctantly approved an application for the conversion of a one-family to a two-family dwelling in a 4-1 vote on May 12 after initially denying the special permit back in December.
Owner of 444 Front Street, Chris Shachoy, appealed the board’s decision at Plymouth Superior Court, which remanded the matter back to the board “for further hearing and issuance of a subsequent decision containing findings addressing the various special permit criteria.”
“[The application] was originally denied under section 5.3 (of the bylaw), and essentially we misread it. Or, I misread it,” said ZBA Chairman Eric Pierce. “The lawyers spoke to each other, and we arranged to have this remanded back so we could discuss it.”
Shachoy’s attorney Richard Schaefer stated that the board should have applied section 7.2 of the zoning bylaw rather than section 5.3.
“I think town counsel feels that way, too,” Schaefer said. “I think that what we have here … is that 7.2 sets forth certain criteria that should be analyzed by the zoning bylaws and should be passed upon. This particular proposal does fit within the provisions of section 7.2.”
Schaefer also pointed out that the home “has always been a two-family home as long as we’ve known,” although neighbors argued that it had previously been a single-family with an in-law suite, a remarkable difference in their opinion.
As far as the parameters of the bylaw, Schaefer said traffic on the already busy street would be unaffected, and the addition of another residential unit at the property would not affect the neighborhood.
“The impact, if anything, will be minimal,” Schaefer said. “This is not a secluded portion of town … and there’s a lot of land that surrounds the house. It’s not going to impinge on the character of the neighborhood in any way.” It could even benefit the town, he said, through a raised assessment value and more tax revenue.
The Planning Board stated in their recommendation memorandum to the ZBA that it would favor an approval if the owner would consider providing affordable housing. Schaefer said the conversion would provide “more affordable” housing for those who cannot afford to buy.
Neighbor Susan Connor stated her case about the in-law suite versus a separate rental unit and said she thinks a two-family conversion will decrease property values on the street.
“If you consider doing this, then I think it should be open to the entire neighborhood,” said Connor. “We should all be able to convert our homes into affordable housing.”
Schaefer replied, “The opportunity is there for other houses either on Front Street or elsewhere in town if they follow what the bylaws have set up. I know there’s always a resistance … but as long as we are able to comply with the provisions…”
Connor said she would not oppose the project if the stipulation was placed that would require one unit be owner-occupied at all times.
“Our intention isn’t to create a slum,” said Shachoy. “All of a sudden everybody in town thinks, because it might be rented … that it’ll be a slum. I can guarantee you that it’s going to be the most beautiful house on the street.”
Shachoy said he had been waiting six months to renovate the house and a two-family is allowed in a residential/agricultural zone under section 7.2 of the zoning bylaw.
“We feel that this is our legal right, and we want it, and we’re going to pursue it as far as we need to go,” said Shachoy. “This is an entitlement,” he said sternly, thumping the table.
Although Shachoy said he does plan to live there, he does not want to be precluded from renting the unit in the future.
The board members had no questions when the chairman opened things up for comment.
After the hearing was closed and the matter taken under consideration, the board deliberated briefly before approving the request.
“It’s allowed in that part of town,” said ZBA member Marc LeBlanc.
Board member Michelle Ouellette voted against the special permit, arguing that the units would not be considered affordable housing as suggested. She expressed a general opposition to the proposal.
“You have to take the personal out of it,” said LeBlanc. “Unfortunately, it is what it is.”
“We’re all a little uncomfortable with it,” said ZBA member Kate Mahoney.
The chairman made the motion, seconded by LeBlanc, and the motion passed with no stipulation placed on owner occupation.
“I don’t see how we can put any parameters around it,” Pierce said. “We don’t have the authority.”
The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for June 9 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.
By Jean Perry