Resolution says some variances ‘arguably result in substantial detriment to the public good’
By AUBREY HAWKE
Waltham Times Contributing Writer
The City Council last week took up a resolution questioning whether zoning variances have gone too far and calling for more study of the issue.
The resolution, put forward by five city councilors for discussion at the Sept. 23 City Council meeting, stated that recent variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals may not have met necessary legal requirements and resulted in “substantial detriment to the public good.”
Ward 9 Councilor Robert G. Logan, one of the five councilors who submitted the resolution, spoke in favor of it at the meeting. He said zoning variances are only allowed under particular circumstances and even when those circumstances are present, there are limits on what variances can allow.
Logan cited state law that gives city councils the authority to enable zoning regulations, noting that the same law created zoning appeal boards as well as gave them authority to hear appeals and grant variances.
Logan said the law allows variances “only under very, very narrow conditions [and] without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the zoning limits.”
Logan said the ZBA has granted variances that seem to surpass those limits.
Ward 8 Councilor Cathyann Harris, another of the five councilors who signed the resolution, also spoke in support of the resolution at the meeting.
“There are some very recent ZBA decisions that have directly impacted my ward and changed the topography of the neighborhood,” she said.
Harris cited as an example a new development at the corner of Newton and High streets, which she said neighbors spoke against at a ZBA meeting. She said the development’s density “completely impacted the privacy of a single-family neighborhood.”
Harris said it is important that existing zoning rules are respected.
“We are a commonwealth of rules and regulations, and zoning is a very important part of how we manage development in our city, and it does need to be managed,” she said. “When you can go into a board, bypass the council and this whole elected process, go get six variances and build something three times the size that should be there by right because you claimed a hardship. What about the hardship of the neighbors whose privacy now is impacted?”
She continued: “We are duly elected, [the ZBA members are] duly appointed, and they’re supposed to be watching the hardships of zoning, not completely overriding the zoning that’s in that area. This is a big deal to the South Side.”
Harris went on to say that “we need to recalibrate and understand where the lines are, so we can work together, not have a situation where they’re making unilateral decisions. They’re completely blowing up the base zoning of that area.”
Council President John J. McLaughlin referred the ZBA resolution to the city’s Ordinances and Rules Committee.
Ward 6 Councilor Sean T. Durkee, Ward 3 Councilor William Hanley and Ward 7 Councilor Paul S. Katz also signed the resolution.
Logan in a follow-up interview with The Waltham Times said “if the ZBA or anyone is looking at the zoning and thinks that the zoning is overly restrictive or unreasonable, the remedy is legislation, not going around the zoning for a variance.”
Here is the text of the resolution. The full discussion of the ZBA resolution can be viewed on WCAC starting at 23:00.
In other action, the City Council
- Brought forward a resolution to address the town’s backlog of unpaved roads. “Every year there is less and less money available from the state and federal government to do our roadways, so we are going to have to come up with more money on our end,” Logan said at the meeting.
- Continued action on a petition to build a six-story hotel off Main Street submitted by 1265 Main Street LLC and J&Co until Nov. 12.
The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 15, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber at Waltham City Hall. City Council meetings are open to the public.
Unfortunately, Harris’s comments regarding 131-133 High St are inaccurate. The new development is exactly as dense as city council’s zoning allows for. The ZBA is not guilty of “blowing up the base zoning”. This property is not in a single family neighborhood and is not even close to a single family neighborhood (the closest is along Hovey Rd and Cedar St, 1,000 ft and 2 blocks away). This neighborhood is RB zoned (duplexes on 6,000 sq ft lots), and that is exactly what the developer is building (duplexes on 6,000 sq ft lots). This is less dense than what previously existed (a 6 plex) and also less dense than its neighboring properties on Newton St (a 4 plex and a 5 plex). The ZBA never even made a ruling related to the density of 131-133 High St.
So what did the ZBA actually grant relief for? The developer approached the ZBA for relief for their lot width. Due to the shape of the land, the 12,000 sq ft lot could not be reasonably split into two 6,000 sq ft lots without violating Waltham’s frontage requirements. As Logan shared during the meeting, MA general law very explicitly gives the ZBA authority to grant variances due to the shape of the land. Also, in case it needs to be said, narrower lot frontage is not a “substantial detriment to the public good”! Here’s a very small subset of the many thousands of properties in Waltham which have lot frontages which are narrower than zoning allows:
Councilor Cathyann Harris’s house
Councilor Sean Durkee’s house
Councilor Colleen Bradley-MacArthur’s house
Councilor John McLauglin’s house
literally half of 131-133 High Street’s immediate neighbors
This is all to say that the ZBA did nothing wrong, and it’s being scapegoated by who’s actually to blame: the existing zoning laws, which city council controls. Waltham’s current zoning laws are unreasonably restrictive to the point that they make most of Waltham’s historic fabric illegal to build today. That’s why new development is so out of character with existing neighborhoods. The ZBA shouldn’t be used as a scapegoat- not only is it disrespectful, it’s also just straight up factually inaccurate. The development at 131-133 High St respects the density of existing zoning, and the ZBA did not overstep its authority in granting a lot width variance.
The city’s posting for the ZBA hearing regarding 131-133 High St is linked below.
https://www.city.waltham.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif12301/f/agendas/2023-31.pdf