Report Excerpt:Article 31 would rezone 5-7 Winter Street to be included in the Neighborhood Multi-Family Overlay District of the MBTA Communities Overlay District. 5-7 Winter Street is currently surrounded by properties included in the Neighborhood Multi-Family Overlay District and zoned commercial properties along Mass Ave. Properties in the MBTA Communities Overlay and commercial properties on Mass Ave allow taller heights, meaning that those properties could all be redeveloped to the maximum height allowed, but that 5-7 Winter Street could not. Should the redevelopment of surrounding properties occur, the owners of 5-7 Winter Street would like to preserve their rights to redevelop as well, so as not to be surrounded by taller buildings. All Board members agreed with the substance of the rezoning.
5-7 Winter Street is on the National Register of Historic Properties, and any future redevelopment would still be subject to review by the Historical Commission. The property was originally not included in the Neighborhood Multi-Family Overlay District due to its status as an historic property on the National Register, which is consistent with the stated approach of the MBTA Communities Working Group.
One Board member expressed concerns with the notification process regarding this article. Section 1.5 of the zoning bylaw says, “When a petition for a change in the zoning map is filed, such petition shall show that copies of the petition have been sent by registered or certified mail to all owners and immediate abutters of the land referred to in the petition.” That was not done by the petitioner at the time of filing the petition. Instead, such notice was given by the petitioner after the March 4 Board hearing on the article. Town Counsel expressed the opinion that the notification was enough to satisfy the requirement of the bylaw, providing that at the time the notification was made, the opportunity for public comment had not passed. Accordingly, the Chair re-opened Article 31 for public comment during the Board meeting on March 18, 2024. The petitioner argued that Section 1.5 of the zoning bylaw does not specify that the required notice is for the Redevelopment Board hearing, and that he interpreted it as requiring adequate notice for Town Meeting. The majority of Board members relied on Town Counsel’s determination that adequate notice had been given. The Board member who opposed the change stated that he favored the change but believed the notice to abutters was inconsistent with the bylaw and that reopening the comment period did not include adequate notice to the abutters.
Recommend Favorable Action (4-1)