Opinion ID: 2010991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ZBA Grants Use Variance

Text: In May 2006, CCS applied to the ZBA for a use variance to develop the property into commercial office space. The application form names CCS as the applicant and PDI as the property owner. The ZBA held a hearing on the application on August 9, 2006. At the hearing, Rebecca Sheppard, a member of PDI's Board of Trustees and chair of the board's Gibraltar Redevelopment Committee, testified that PDI's advocacy efforts on behalf of [Gibraltar] began with a stipulation that an economically self-sustaining reuse of the building... would take place once it was acquired. Sheppard testified that [t]he idea was to develop an adaptive reuse on the site that would generate a financial stream to support the property. She said that PDI received nine proposals to develop Gibraltar, including plans for townhouses, educational facilities and commercial enterprises such as medical buildings, restaurants and shops. But, she said, CCS's proposal was the only viable option. The testimony at the hearing also revealed that the gardens have been restored and are now in good condition, but the mansion is in disrepair. Witnesses described wood rot, plaster and water damage, roof damage, asbestos, lead paint and mold throughout the house. The main floor is inhabited by animals. Vandals regularly cause damage to the interior and exterior of the house. Given the extensive damage, the estimated cost to restore Gibraltar to its former condition is between $9 million and $10 million. Sheppard testified that if CCS's plans do not go forward as proposed, the mansion will continue to deteriorate and the cost to restore the mansion will increase. CCS presented evidence that a commercial adaptive reuse, as opposed to a residential project, was necessary to save Gibraltar. Adrian Fine, director of the Northeast Field Office for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, testified that commercial adaptive reuse plans are effective and, in fact, the preferred method for preserving historic buildings that can no longer be used for their intended purposes. Ted Williams, the site engineer, testified that if there was not an easement on the property, 18 residential homes could be built at Gibraltar. With the easement restrictions, only two residential homes could be built. Neil Killian, a commercial real estate broker, testified that a residential subdivision of Gibraltar was not an economically viable option because of the easement. He testified as follows: I [looked] at some of the recent, comparable home sales in and around the Gibraltar site, as well as some recent home lot sales in and around the area, and essentially what it reflects is that homes in the area can range anywhere [from] half a million to $6 million and lots can range anywhere from the low $100,000s to as high as $600,000, and just given those parameters and based on [Ted Williams'] analysis of what can actually be done on this site, in a residential capacity, it's very easy to discern that residential is not adequate to generate the return needed to salvage the mansion and gardens. Killian further explained that a 10,000-square-foot office building, as opposed to a smaller structure, was needed to generate a rate of return for the developer that would justify the risk of undertaking the project. Wendie Stabler, counsel for CCS, explained that through various architectural designs and distribution of the parking lots around the grounds, the project would comport with the residential nature of the neighborhood. The ZBA approved the variance that evening by a vote of two to one, and issued a written decision on September 12, 2006. The decision states: [T]he Board having held a public hearing and having heard all the testimony and considering the location, is of the majority opinion that the application could be granted without substantially impairing the general purpose and intent of the Building Zone Ordinance and that it would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and there being circumstances of hardship or exceptional practical difficulty ... The decision then lists the following factors, which the ZBA found to be circumstances of hardship or exceptional practical difficulty that justified the variance: 1) Given the renovation costs, the existing building cannot reasonably be used in a manner permitted by the current zoning, and; 2) the buildings existing on the premises are in a seriously deteriorating condition and the approval of the variance would allow for their restoration, and; 3) the buildings on the premises have significant historic value and have been, and would continue to be, an asset to the neighborhood and the city in general, and; 4) considering that there are development restrictions limiting the use of the property that, while self-imposed, were specifically instated to prevent the destruction of the buildings and grounds, to prevent large scale redevelopment of the site, and to promise the restoration of the historic structures and gardens, and; 5) considering that it had been understood, at the time of the imposition of the restrictions, that some alternative use would be required to sustain and fund the restoration, and; 6) considering that the Board had previously approved such an alternative use (for a hotel/restaurant/bed and breakfast) and that the current proposal is reasonably similar in scope, and; 7) considering that the property owner has considered a number of potential alternative uses, over a period of years; and 8) considering that the proposed new structures have been designed to limit their visibility to the surrounding area and to be compatible with the residential structures in the area, and; 9) considering that amply parking is to be provided to accommodate the use and that entrances and exits have been designed to funnel traffic to arterial streets and to minimize traffic impact on the residential neighborhood streets, and; 10) considering that there are other commercial and office uses in the area, such that the proposed use would not be entirely inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The member of the ZBA who voted against the variance explained that the one thing that really concerns me in this particular case is when a property owner puts restrictions essentially on himself, which really gives the property owner a very hard time in conforming to the zoning code, and I think in large part, that's what happened here. The variance gives CCS the right to convert the property for office use and to construct a new 10,000-square-foot office building next to the existing mansion.