Zoning Board of Appeals

City Of Attleboro, Massachusetts ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 77 PARK STREET ATTLEBORO, MASSACHUSETTS 02703 TEL 508.223.2222 FAX 508.222.3046 MINUTES MARCH 24, 2022 In accordance with the provisions of the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, as amended, public hearings were held on Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers located at Government Center, 77 Park Street, Attleboro, MA 02703, relative to the following: Zoning Board Members Present: Chairwoman Cathy Merkle, Johnny Bender, Kathy Rautenstrauch, Kent Richards, and Sandra Varrieur Members Absent: None The Board heard Case #5604, the application of Ashli’s Farm, Inc. and Ashli’s Extracts, Inc. for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–10.15 MARIJUANA BUSINESS USES to establish a marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facility, a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–10.2 EARTH REMOVAL for an earth removal operation , a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS to modify the minimum screening and bufferyard requirements pursuant to §17–4.4.5 REQUIRED SCREENS AND BUFFERYARDS , a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum required distance between a proposed marijuana business and a residential zoning district pursuant to §17–10.15(G)(3)( A) MARIJUANA BUSINESS USES , a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES to exceed the maximum permissible entrance/exit driveway width pursuant to §17–5.9(D) GENERAL PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS , and a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the provisions pursuant to §17–5.1 OFF –STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS to reduce the required parking stall dimensions, the subject premises being located at 76 Frank Mossberg Drive, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #145, lot #1A, located in the Industrial zoning district. Speaking in favor of the application was attorney Jack Jacobi who distributed an informational packet to the Board and explained that the Board has previously granted a special permit for a 130,000 square foot marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facility but that they were unable to obtain the financing to move forward with that project. He stated that they are now proposing a 75,000 square foot marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facility and a modified site plan. He stated that a primary activity will be to press marijuana plants to obtain the oil for products. He stated that the building is set back 90–feet from the property line. He stated that there is a 75–foot wide Algonquin gas company easement on the property at the rear. He stated that effectively, there would be approximately 165–foot between the proposed building and any potential residence to the west of the property. He stated that extensive earth removal is needed to develop the site. He explained that the Police Chief is reviewing their security plan and they have provided an exterior lighting plan. Speaking in favor of the application was Bill Blais of OHI Engineering who stated that a single entrance is proposed with parking in the front and on the side of the building. He stated that a 20–foot wide access road is provided around the building requested by the Fire Department. He noted that shipping and receiving would occur in the front of the building within a fully fenced–in. He pointed out the dumpster on the plan. He stated that they are also before the Conservation Commission for a stormwater management permit. He stated that they have received comments from the Wastewater Department and are working to get them the requested materials to them. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 1 There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5598, the application of City of Attleboro for a special permit pursuant §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–12.0 FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT for work/excavation within the 100–year floodplain associated with the replacement of the Pitas Avenue bridge over the Seven Mile River, the subject premises being located within the Pitas Avenue right–of–way on Assessor ’s plat #72 and #74, located in the Single Residence –B zoning district and Single Residence –C zoning district . Speaking in favor of the application was Public Works Superintendent Michael Tyler who explained that the Pitas Avenue bridge is a single lane bridge that the city took over from private ownership so that the state would perform biannual inspections. He stated that recent inspections required the capacity for the bridge to be reduced by 50%, from 8 tons to 4 tons, until emergency repair work can be performed. He stated that they are trying to expedite this project because if the bridge were to fail, it would isolate the residential houses located on the opposite side of the bridge. He stated that they are pursuing federal funding and must make sure the project is shovel–ready as soon as possible. He stated that they are proposing to renovate and widen the bridge to accommodate two lanes of traffic. Cathy Merkle asked whether emergency vehicles will be able to access the bridge during construction. Mr. Tyler stated that the work is proposed to be performed in phases and will be closed to all travel for certain periods. Speaking in favor of the application was Eric Silva of PARE Corporation who noted that city fire trucks exceed the 8 ton capacity, so they cannot presently utilize the bridge until the repair work is completed. He stated that the proposed two–lane, single span bridge has been designed to MADOT river crossing standards. He stated that the work will be completed in two phases, most of which will involve one lane of traffic being permitted with traffic control set up to ensure safe passage. He stated that the bridge will be widened to have shoulders to give pedestrians greater protection, in addition to creating two lanes of traffic. He stated that the work is proposed within the floodplain. He stated that the bridge has a current width clearance of 14–feet and that they are proposing to widen it up to 36–feet. He stated that the abutments will be removed and that concrete and soil will be excavated and removed from the site. He stated that they are proposing the addition of aggregates to the stream bed. Director of Planning and Development Gary Ayrassian asked whether dewatering will be involved. Mr. Silva answered yes, within the construction area. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether dewatering will occur in the floodplain. Mr. Silva pointed out on the plan the possible locations where dewatering will occur and the areas where the water will be pumped to. Mr. Ayrassian expressed concern about the lack of detail and certainty. Mr. Silva stated that the matter is specific to operations and typically left up to the contractor. He stated that the contractor could be required to keep it out of the floodplain, but that it will depend upon the size of the pumps used. Senior Land Use Planner Stephanie Davies agreed with Mr. Ayrassian pointed out that dewatering activities appear to be proposed in the floodplain. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 2 Speaking in favor of the application was David Atwell of PARE Corporation who stated that they anticipate having to perform dewatering in the floodplain, unless they are required not to. Mr. Silva pointed out that the dewatering would be strictly temporary during construction. Mr. Ayrassian stated that that is understood. Mr. Silva replied that the bridge is constructed to accommodate 25–year storm events. He stated that design standard is dictated by MADOT. Ms. Davies pointed out that the elevation of the bridge appears to be below the 100–year flood elevation. Mr. Silva stated that to meet that standard the bridge would have to be significantly higher, but that they are meeting state standards. Johnny Bender asked how long the project will take to complete. Mr. Silva replied about 1.5 to 2 years from now. Ms. Davies asked whether the bridge currently floods with frequency. Mr. Silva answered yes, along with land to the west. He stated that conditions will be improved with the bridge renovations, as well as by moving the culvert downstream. Mr. Ayrassian asked Mr. Silva to point out where on the plan they propose to fill floodplain. He stated given the scale of the site plan and the cluttered information shown, it is nearly impossible to evaluate the plan. He recommended that they present the plan in multiple sheets to minimize clutter on any one plan sheet. He stated that he cannot discern the fill area or the compensatory storage areas. Mr. Silva noted that there will be an overall reduction in compensatory storage as they are widening and enlarging the bridge. He went over the temporary and permanent impacts. Mr. Ayrassian pointed out that some of the proposed work is on private property and asked whether the property owners have signed the application filed with the Zoning Board or submitted a letter of consent. He asked whether the City has sought temporary or permanent easements to perform the work on the private property. He stated that the Zoning Board and Conservation Commission cannot issue permits without consent and acknowledgement from the abutting property owners. Mr. Atwell stated that they have not contacted the abutters and have not obtained any consent. He stated that will perform those actions and noted that they also still need to apply for a Chapter 91 Waterways license, which they anticipate will take anywhere from several months to a year to be issued. He noted that in order to apply, they need local sign–offs. Mr. Ayrassian stated that it is nice that PARE is concerned about the Chapter 91 Waterways license but they will never get there unless and until they address the private property matters. He stated that it is unconscionable that they have done nothing to date to reach out to the abutting property owners and to obtain their signatures and permission for the work that is proposed on their property. He asked what PARE was thinking. He stated that no work can be approved on private property without the owners’ written consent. He asked if any effort has been made to date to reach out the neighbors. Mr. Atwell replied no. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 3 Ms. Davies stated that the Zoning Board typically does not vote on floodplain special permits until the Conservation Commission has rendered their decision and pointed out that they have not yet even filed applications with the Commission. She recommended that they do so as possible so the project can be reviewed concurrently. Mr. Tyler thanked the staff for the comments and reassured the Board that they will address these outstanding matters immediately. Speaking in opposition was Marlena Harrison of 102 Pitas Avenue who stated that it does not really make sense to propose a two lane bridge that connects to a one lane dirt road that is barely wide enough for one car. She stated that she also has concerns with the dewatering process, as her property is located right before the bridge and utilizes well water. She expressed concern with how dewatering may impact shallow domestic wells. Johnny Bender explained that typically, dewatering simply involves employing a pump to move water from one area in the construction zone to another or to a tank, to keep the area dry while work is occurring. He stated that it should just impact the immediate area where the draining happens, and not the overall ground water in the area. Ms. Harrison expressed concern with the level of silting that has occurred over the past 30 years in the river. Mr. Ayrassian noted that dredging is regulated by the state and not the city and that would need to contact the DEP with questions and concerns. Ms. Harrison stated that she did not imagine the bridge renovations will have much of an impact on flooding and asserted that people’s yards already routinely flood. Speaking in opposition was Dale Fontaine of 93 Pitas Avenue who stated that he anticipated that he is one of the private residents whose property is likely to be impacted. He stated that he has not received any notification and has not been able to review any of the design plans. He stated that he did not see any way that they could widen the road due to the existing abutment. He stated that he is concerned for his septic system, which is near the street and has the potential to be impacted. He argued that a two lane bridge is not warranted if the road is going to remain one lane. He stated that adding the additional lane to the bridge seems excessive. Mr. Ayrassian encouraged Mr. Fontaine to contact Public Works so that he may review the design plans. Cathy Merkle stated that the Zoning Board does not have control over whether a single land or a double lane bridge is installed. She stated the city actually does not either as the design is subject to MADOT design standards. She stated that the only matter before the Board is the proposed work within the floodplain. She stated that Mr. Fontaine’s questions are valid and needs to reach out to Public Works. Speaking in opposition was Mary Chun of 15 River Drive who stated that the Seven Mile River impacts many people and if they are diverting it in any way, there is the potential for negative impacts. Mr. Ayrassian stated that the DPW and MADOT are not proposing to divert the river. He stated that the Board needs to make a determination that the proposed work within the floodplain will not have a negative flooding impact. He stated that questions regarding the implications of the temporary dewatering should be posed to Public Works. Johnny Bender pointed out that the Conservation Commission will also be reviewing the project and the wildlife associated with wetlands is under their jurisdiction. He noted that Massachusetts has some of the strictest environmental laws in the country that will minimize the impacts of this project. Ms. Chun stated that she felt a two–lane bridge is unnecessary. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 4 Cathy Merkle agreed, but stated that it is up to the state. Speaking neither for nor against was Ron Lagasse of 179 Glenfield Road in North Attleborough who asked when the work is slated to commence. Mr. Ayrassian stated that a number of approvals are required before a start date can be determined. He stated that as of now, PARE Engineering believes work will be completed within approximately two years from now. Mr. Lagasse questioned the proposed weight limit for the bridge and whether oil trucks will be able to traverse it. Mr. Ayrassian advised Mr. Lagasse to reach out to Public Works with such inquiries. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5601, the application of Gary Demers for Dodge Mill Realty LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming use to convert a garage into an ice cream shop, the subject premises being located at 200 North Main Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #49, lot #147, located in the General Business zoning district and Industrial zo ning district . Speaking in favor of the application was Gary Demers of Dodge Mill Realty, LLC who explained that a portion of the site is industrial, a portion is general business, and that the site abuts a city park. He stated that he has a potential tenant who wants to open an ice cream shop in an existing garage that is located on the property. He stated that the garage is a one–story, two–stall, structure with the door facing North Main Street. He stated that the location is ideal for an ice cream shop and he plans to maintain the historic character of the property. Sandra Varrieur sought to confirm that patrons could purchase ice cream and then walk over to the adjacent Blackinton Pond and park area. Mr. Demers replied yes. He stated that the customer window service would face the pond and that patrons would only have to walk about 15–feet to park benches where they could sit, eat their ice cream, and enjoy the park. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether the ice cream will be made on site or delivered. Mr. Demers replied that it will be Hershey’s brand ice cream and delivered to the site in the early morning. He stated that there is sufficient area in the rear to accommodate a tractor trailer, if the need arises. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether other food products are proposed such as cheese burgers, french fries, or onion rings, necessitating a fryolator or grease trap. Mr. Demers answered no, and stated that they will simply be selling ice cream and the only equipment to install will be freezers. Mr. Ayrassian inquired about the proposed hours and days of operation. Mr. Demers stated that they are requesting permission to operate seven days a week, with the varying hours depending on the season. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether any outdoor seating is proposed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 5 Mr. Demers answered yes, they are seeking to place at least three picnic tables in front of the garage. He stated that all of the parking will be at the back of the garage. Cathy Merkle asked whether indoor seating is proposed. Mr. Demers replied no. Johnny Bender asked Mr. Demers if he is aware whether the residents of the single–family home at the rear of the property are in support of the proposal. Mr. Demers answered no, as he owns the property and no one currently lives in the dwelling. Mr. Ayrassian asked if any signage is proposed. Mr. Demers stated that he plans to put up a sign at the entrance on North Main Street that resembles the design of the sign across the street at the Colonel Blackinton Inn. He stated that he would also like to put a sign on the building identifying it as the ice cream shop. He noted that there is a small sign already for the existing salon located on the site. Mr. Ayrassian inquired when they would like to open for business. Mr. Demers replied this year, if approvals can be obtained in a timely manner. Sandra Varrieur asked if any exterior renovations are proposed to the garage. Mr. Demers noted that just interior renovations are proposed. Mr. Ayrassian asked if public bathrooms will be provided or will the bathrooms be exclusively for the employees. Mr. Demers answered that the bathrooms will be exclusively for employee use. Cathy Merkle asked whether relief will be required for the signage. Ms. Davies replied not if the signs satisfy the design requirements of the sign ordinance. She asked whether the garage is included in the site’s listing on the National Historic Registry and whether alterations will have to be approved through Historic Preservation. Mr. Demers stated that the property is simply designated on the Registry and therefore the Historic Commission has no authority over changes to the site. Cathy Merkle asked how many employees are anticipated. Mr. Demers replied no more than four. Speaking in favor of the application was Michael Angelo who stated that he has known the party who wishes to establish the ice cream shop for over 40 years and that he would like to vouch for their character as upstanding citizens of the city who give back to the community. Speaking in favor of the application was Laura Dolan who expressed her support for the ice cream establishment. She noted that the entrepreneurs had previously obtained approval from the Board to open an ice cream shop on Pleasant Street, but were unable to open the business due to other permitting issues. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 6 Speaking in favor of the application was Catherine DeSimone who expressed her support of the ice cream establishment, and that she feels the location is ideal because it is a walkable destination. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5597, the application of Tim and Jacqueline Hernon, Trustees for Hergaff Trust for variances pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES under §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS from the minimum lot area, lot width, front yard setback, rear yard setback, and side yard setback requirements to subdivide a lot containing two residential structures, the subject premises being located at 10 and 14 Marjorie Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #35, lot #78A, #79, and #80, located in the General Residence –A zoning district. Speaking in favor of the application was attorney Peter Clark who asserted that his client is not looking to build or develop, but rather legalize what is currently existing. He noted that the building located at 14 Marjorie Street was constructed in 1986 and does not qualify for the zoning exemption to subdivide the lots by right when the structures were in existence prior to 1942. Johnny Bender asked what exists now and what the applicant is looking to accomplish. Attorney Clark replied that one two–family dwelling was originally constructed at 10 Marjorie Street and that for some reason, it was later listed as a single–family dwelling with an in–law apartment. Ms. Davies noted that the Building Inspector has the structure listed as a single–family dwelling. Attorney Clark stated that the three–family residential structure was built on the adjoining lot, 14 Marjorie Street, in 1986. Ms. Davies noted that there is a Zoning Board application from then that shows canopies connecting the single–family dwelling and the three–family dwelling to suggest that the land use was an attached four–family dwelling. She noted that the building does not appear to have been constructed to the approved plan associated with the multi–family special permit. Attorney Clark stated that in his research, the decision for the three–family dwelling called for the three units to be built separate from the single–family dwelling at 10 Marjorie Street. Ms. Davies countered that the approved site plan shows the physical connection between the one–family and three–family. Attorney Clark stated that the Building Inspector’s Department does not have a copy of that plan. He asserted that whether constructed to plan or not, the special permit did affirm the right for the structure to be built. Ms. Davies noted that the Tax Assessor already has these listed as separate lots, but the deed from 2014 shows both lots owned by one person. Attorney Clark agreed that there is a title issue that he is trying to resolve. He stated that he is looking to have clear, separate, lots approved for each of the structures. Cathy Merkle noted that she imagined this needs to be done to allow either of the structures to be sold separately. She asked whether there was any way to make at least one of the lots conforming. Attorney Clark answered no. He noted that the original subdivision occurred back in November 1927. He stated that they are attempting to create the two best possible separate lots with what they have. He stated that the existing three–family at 14 Marjorie Street would have six parking spaces. He noted that the corner of one ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 7 would infringe on the land for 10 Marjorie Street, but that they are proposing cross–easements. He stated that the existing structure at 10 Marjorie was originally appraised as a two–family dwelling, but later changed to be listed as a single–family dwelling with an in–law apartment. Ms. Davies stated that the Tax Assessor has the structure listed as a single–family dwelling but that ultimately, the determination of the land use is up to the Building Inspector. Attorney Clark pointed out that the special permit from 1986 references approval for five units. Ms. Davies disagreed, stating that the original application was for five residential units in addition to the existing single–family dwelling for a total of six–unit multi–family dwelling. She stated that the Board approved only three additional residential units for a total of four. Cathy Merkle asked why the parking spaces were not shifted over to eliminate the need for any easements. Attorney Clark replied that the engineer for the plan thought that parking counted towards the lot coverage requirement. Ms. Davies pointed out that shifting the parking would make the matter cleaner and eliminate the need for additional relief to park off–site. Attorney Clark agreed to revise the plan. He noted that one lot is proposed to be slightly over 10,000 square feet and the other would be slightly less than 7,000 square feet. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether a subdivision that creates comparable land area per unit had been contemplated. Ms. Davies noted that such an approach was not possible as there is a large, existing garage at the rear of the site. Johnny Bender sought to confirm that the current owners of each house are in agreement with this proposal. Attorney Clark confirmed that both owners signed the application. Johnny Bender sought to confirm that neither of the lots would be dependent upon the other for access or parking. Attorney Clark agreed and stated that there are driveways on both sides that are connected in the middle, but that they will be made independent if the parking is shifted over, as discussed. He noted that sewer from 14 Marjorie Street goes across to 10 Marjorie Street, for which an easement will be created. Ms. Davies stated that should the Board grant all of the relief requested by the applicant, the Board ought to contemplate a condition to require 10 Marjorie Street to install sewer directly out to the main in the roadway. She noted that the sewer was approved as designed since the structures were all originally on one lot. She expressed concern that should one of the lots be foreclosed upon in the future and service disconnected, service for the other would too, in the short–term. She stated that with two separate owners, this situation creates a potential problem in the future. Attorney Clark pointed out that the existing hardship was not created by the current property owners. Mr. Ayrassian inquired about the rationale for granting the variances. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 8 Attorney Clark replied that the shape and previously shared ownership are the hardship. He stated that clearly encroachments are the result of the shape and positioning of the two buildings on the land. He stated that if not approved by the Board, the matter will have to go to Land Court. Cathy Merkle expressed concern with creating non–conforming lots. Ms. Davies noted that the situation is already non–conforming, since the existing area of 17,000 square feet is insufficient to support four units. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5600, the application of S&A Fuels, Inc. for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to expand a pre–existing non–conforming business use by adding a fried chicken eatery to an existing gasoline station/convenience store, the subject premises being located at 939 and 947 Newport Avenue, more specifically Assesso r’s plat #18, lot #486–#492, located in the Single Residence –A zoning district. The Board read the email and Form Z1 – Request to Continue a Public Hearing from attorney George I. Spatcher, Jr. on behalf of S&A Fuels, Inc., received March 24, 2022, requesting the Board to continue the public hearing to April 14, 2022. Cathy Merkle made a motion to continue a public hearing. Kent Richards seconded the motion. All voted in favor to continue a public hearing. Mr. Ayrassian noted that several residents were in attendance for the public hearing and recommended to the Board that even the applicant is not present that they should not preclude the residents from speaking given that it is a public hearing. The Board agreed. Speaking in opposition was Jeff O’Gara who stated that his home is directly across the street from the subject property. He stated that he thought it was unfair for the applicant to request a continuance because they were not sufficiently prepared, as they should have been ready at the time of filing to present the case. Ms. Davies noted that the applicant’s request to continue the public hearing was predicated upon the questions raised in her staff report, which had just gone out the previous day. Mr. O’Gara stated that he was in attendance for all of the prior meetings throughout the process to change the pre–existing non–conforming use at this property, which was originally slated to be an Applegate Fuel and 7/11, businesses that subsequently backed out of the deal. He stated that when the present owners requested modifications to the site, he was told they would have to follow the design as previously approved and asserted that they have not. He stated that rather than a combination gas station/convenience store, there are two separate businesses operating on the site – a chicken restaurant and a convenience store. He asserted that the site was only approved for a convenience store and that 7/11 strictly reheats pre–cooked foods, so no fumes were slated to be exhausted into the neighborhood. He noted that recently, there had been some changes to the signage advertising the chicken restaurant, covering up the words referencing the freshly made chicken with the word “coffee”. Mr. Ayrassian stated that the changes to the sign were made as a result of this application, as they cannot currently cook fresh chicken on the premises. Mr. O’Gara argued that the applicant has already been doing that. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 9 Mr. Ayrassian replied that the action was undertaken in defiance of the special permit that was previously issued. He stated that when the Building Commissioner found out an oversized fryolator was exhausting fumes into the neighborhood, it triggered the need for action – either stopping from cooking fresh chicken or filing a special permit to expand the use. Mr. O’Gara asserted that the business is presently cooking and selling chicken. He stated that the business wants to install an exhaust fan because the smells are detrimental to the business and noted that they have been routinely propping doors open to air out the building. He stated that when he had been informed by the Building Commissioner that the intent was not to exhaust fumes into the neighborhood, he was ready to stop fighting the changes. He stated that rather than appealing the Building Commissioner’s ruling, as his primary concern was smell, he did not pursue further action. Cathy Merkle noted that Mr. O’Gara has reason to be upset, as the Board did not approve the venting of fried food fumes into the neighborhood. Mr. Ayrassian asked Mr. O’Gara if he called the Building Inspector’s Department to report that fresh chicken was still being cooked. Mr. O’Gara answered yes, but explained that he was told the business has the right to apply for the relief to cook the chicken. He asserted that the business has no respect for the neighbors and have already illegally installed a use that was not approved. He noted that the model is not just a “grab and go” business, but rather patrons can go into the store and have the chicken cooked while they wait. Cathy Merkle noted that staff would follow–up with the Building Inspector regarding him issuing a Cease and Desist to stop the frying of chicken. Mr. O’Gara argued that the application talks about mitigating the effect of fumes using an exhaust system, but that they are creating a problem by venting into a residential neighborhood in the first place. Mr. Ayrassian pointed out that with the business continuing to fry chicken provides Mr. O’Gara with evidence of the nuisance. Mr. O’Gara stated that the smell is terrible. He stated that the application proposes frying food between 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but their signage advertises chicken being available 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He stated that he does not want to see the sale of fried chicken occurring there at all, but that at the minimum, the business owner needs to be transparent about what they are offering and when. He stated that he also has concerns about the fact that he observed the business’ plow operator pushing snow into Newport Avenue. He stated that he called the police, but by the time they arrived, the snow had been plowed by either the city or the state. He asked whether the store was overstepping its bounds by also selling glass bongs and other marijuana paraphernalia. Mr. Ayrassian asserted that if they have a convenience store license then such sundry products are within the range of retail products that they may sell. Mr. O’Gara stated that he felt the Board should deny the permit application because it will have negative impact on the neighborhood, especially in regards to foul odors. He stated that the diesel trucks and jake braking are bad enough from the gas patrons, but the restaurant smell is too much for the neighbors to bear. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether there were any other nuisances observed before chicken began to be cooked. Mr. O’Gara replied no, but explained that he did have concerns with the lack of signage about idling, as cars frequently idle at the diesel pump. He noted that he has also seen 18–wheel trucks pull into the site with their trailers sticking out on to Newport Avenue, which is a hazard. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 10 Speaking in opposition was Mary Chun who wanted to know if the applicant will be made aware of the comments they are presenting. Cathy Merkle noted that Zoning Board meetings are not televised but digitally audio recorded. Ms. Chun stated that she shares many of the complaints stated by Mr. O’Gara. She stated that she did not object when the site was just a small gas station, but stated that the restaurant generates significantly more traffic. She stated that the lights were on at the site all night during the storm, even though cars could not buy gas. She stated that she also observed them plowing snow onto Newport Avenue and River Avenue. Ms. Chun stated that the Board should not grant the permit. Cathy Merkle stated that the Zoning Board is charged with hearing both sides of every case. Ms. Chun stated that the business has not been a good neighbor. Speaking in opposition was Tony Diaz of 19 Randolph Avenue who agreed with everything presented by Mr. O’Gara and Ms. Chun. He stated that trucks have to cross three lanes to access the site and they end up running into one another when trying to circulate around the building. Cathy Merkle reiterated that the matter presently before the Board is the restaurant use with proposed exhausting of fumes. Ms. Davies suggested that if residents have any pictures of trucks overhanging into Newport Avenue, they should submit those to the Board. Mr. O’Gara asked why they are still at this time frying chicken when they do not have the permit from the Board. Mr. Ayrassian stated that the Building Inspector’s office typically allows the use to continue while the applicant is in the process addressing his ruling. Ms. Davies added that it is not a violation if cooking is occurring without exhausting into the neighborhood. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5599, the application of Damaso Hernandez for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–5.9(F) GENERAL PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS to eliminate the required minimum number of off–street parking stalls pursuant to §17–5.10 TABLE OF OFF –STREET PARKING REGULATIONS associated with the establishment of a retail bakery shop, the subject premises being located at 9 Park Street , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #28, lot #7, located in the Central Business zoning district. Speaking in favor of the application was attorney Jack Jacobi who stated that his client, Damaso Hernandez, owns and operates the Kimochi Bubble Tea Shop located on the corner of Park Street and South Main Street. He stated that he is proposing to open another store several doors down on Park Street to sell Japanese rings, which are like donut holes in a ring shape. He stated that he proposes a maximum of twelve (12) seats for indoor eating and a takeout counter within the 1,100 square foot space. He also stated that his client will be baking donuts to supply donuts for all of his other bubble teas stores, which totals four including the one on the corner of Park Street and South Main Street. Ms. Davies pointed out that with supplying donuts to his other stores, it appears that a commercial kitchen is being proposed, which is not allowed in the “CB” zoning district, and that this will impact employee numbers and deliveries. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 11 Attorney Jacobi stated that they have met with the Health Department and Building Department to fulfill all of their requirements. Ms. Davies stated that she imagined some sort of delivery trucks would be required to transport the donuts. Attorney Jacobi asserted that the principal use is selling bakery products on site. Cathy Merkle countered that while that is true, that he just stated that the Mr. Hernandez will also ship his donuts to his other stores and she questioned whether the proposed use is a retail use or a wholesale use. Attorney Jacobi stated that the operation would employ the baker, three assistant cooks, and one person to man the cash register for a total of five employees at any given time. He stated that the bakers arrive by 4:30 a.m. and leave by 1:00 p.m. He stated that the bakery would be open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., unless they run of donuts sooner than 10:00 p.m. in which case they would close when they run out of product. Cathy Merkle expressed concern over the plan for distributing the donuts to alternate locations. Attorney Jacobi stated that box trucks would be loaded for transport. Cathy Merkle asked where the loading will occur. Attorney Jacobi stated that he is unsure. Mr. Ayrassian noted that when Mr. Damaso came to the Planning Department to speak with him, they only discussed the retail element of the business, as well as the baking of goods on site. He stated that Mr. Damaso did not speak with him about the distribution element of his business plan. Attorney Jacobi pointed out that there is a parking issue, as well a (un)loading issue. Mr. Ayrassian suggested finding out how other stores in the CB zoning district handle deliveries and (un)loading. Ms. Davies noted that there will be significantly more deliveries for distributing the baked goods to other stores. Cathy Merkle agreed, stating that supplies will be brought in to make the product and then finished product will be transported out for distribution. Kent Richards noted that he assumed the raw materials coming in would be significantly more than what is required for the bubble tea shop. Ms. Davies read the letter of opposition from Mark Cuddy, which she stated was received too late in the day to be included on the addendum. Kathy Rautenstrauch noted that she works in the area and there is no parking ever available on the street and it is an ongoing issue. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5603, the application of Build to Suit, Inc. on behalf of BioLife Plasma Services for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.1 USE DESIGNATIONS to establish a blood plasma donation center, the subject premises being located at the South Attleboro Square shopping plaza at 287 Washington Street, more specifically in Unit #5A and Unit #5B, Assessor ’s plat #14, lot #73, located in the Planned Highway Business zoning district. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 12 Speaking in favor of the application was attorney Jack Jacobi of Coogan Smith, LLP who explained that he submitted a letter this afternoon to the Department of Planning and Development supplying additional information to the Board regarding the business, as requested in the Senior Planner’s staff report. He explained that a blood plasma donation center is being proposed in a vacant space at the South Attleboro Square shopping plaza. He noted that the Building Commissioner had opined that the use was similar to a medical office, but not quite the same, so they filed a special permit under §17–3.1 USE DESIGNATIONS to establish the use. He stated that BioLife Plasma Services will be operating the establishment and that they estimate 35 employees including administrative staff and medically trained phlebotomists. He stated that the proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., which will allow them to accommodate donors who want to come in before or after work. He stated that generally, approximately 300 donors visit such an establishment on a daily basis. He stated that although it is a by–appointment–only business, the business provides sixty beds to accommodate and absorb those donors who have a tendency to come early, so that they do not queue outside the establishment. He stated that deliveries would be made at the rear of the building. He stated that a new secured dumpster is proposed at the rear of the site. Kent Richards asked where needles, blood waste, and other paraphernalia would be disposed. Attorney Jacobi replied the business employs a stringent medical waste protocol. He stated that biohazardous medical waste would be kept in a locked unit inside of the establishment until such time that the waste would be regularly hauled away by a licensed waste disposal service. He asserted that only packaging and other such typical waste products would be going in the outdoor dumpster. Mr. Ayrassian inquired about the licensing process for such establishments to operate. Attorney Jacobi replied that BioLife has both federal and state licenses to operate donation centers. He stated that there is currently one center open in Worcester and that they have several more in the works. He noted that the licensing process is akin to that of the CCC for marijuana facilities and for example, that plasma donation centers must obtain their local permits before they can be inspected by the state and receive a license to operate. He stated that they do not have specifics on signage, but that a professional will be hired to design signage that complies with the standards contained in the zoning ordinance. Johnny Bender inquired about the days and hours of operation. Attorney Jacobi replied six days per week, Monday through Saturday, and that it is a by–appointment–only business. He stated that there would never be any lines and all donors would be screened in advance for alcohol, drug, and blood borne diseases. He stated that donors are paid on their debit card. He stated that there are 372 parking spaces at the shopping plaza, exclusive of Chucky Cheese and the Shell station, and that they do not anticipate any parking problems. Ms. Davies inquired about the pick–up frequency of the plasma. Attorney Jacobi replied that the plasma would be picked up once per week at the rear of the building by a specially licensed 18–wheel refrigerated truck. He noted that deliveries of medical supplies would be made several times during the week. Cathy Merkle asked whether any of the plasma is processed on site. Attorney Jacobi replied that the only activities at the establishment are the collection of the plasma, its immediate storage in a freezer, and shipping of the plasma. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 13 The Board heard Case #5605, the application of US SolarWorks for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.1 USE DESIGNATIONS to construct a ground –mounted solar photovoltaic facility; the subject premises being located at 235 Pike Avenue – Parcel F, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #204, lot #183, located in the Single Residence –D zoning district. Speaking in favor of the application was Pete Fine of US Solar Works who stated that the subject site is a sparsely wooded lot off Pike Avenue and a paper street known as Broadway where a gravel driveway exists that provides access to the solar site. Cathy Merkle pointed out that a paper street cannot be used to satisfy the minimum lot frontage requirement. Mr. Fine stated that most of the area drains downward and that they are proposing to put one row of solar panels, which they are looking to carefully integrate into the site. He stated that there is no intent to blast or clear acres of trees. He stated that the panels will be barely visible from the road and that they do not intend to do any grade work. He stated that they are not changing existing site drainage patterns. He stated that are proposing to mulch and gravel around the drip edge of the panels. He stated that they do not anticipate any erosion or stormwater issues. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether the proposed panels are fixed or variable. Mr. Fine answered fixed. He stated that they are anchored to the ground by 2′x4′x2′ concrete blocks, which eliminate the need for any excavation. Mr. Ayrassian asked whether a stormwater management permit has been filed with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Fine asserted that as no elevations were being changed and did not he needed to do so. Ms. Davies noted that an alteration of 2,500 square feet or more triggers the need for a stormwater management permit. Mr. Fine stated that he will look into the stormwater permitting process. Cathy Merkle asked whether the panels will provide electricity to the homeowner or will be connected to the grid. Mr. Fine replied that they will be connected to the grid. He stated that an additional pole will be installed with underground conduit to the panels. He pointed out the proposed transformer pad closer to the road and noted that the remainder of the equipment will be built on to the panel racks. Mr. Ayrassian stated that such details need to be added to the plan. Ms. Davies noted that details of the concrete blocks also must be provide and how the panels would be anchored on them. Cathy Merkle inquired about the maintenance schedule for the panels. Mr. Fine stated that they are maintained usually only once or twice a year. Ms. Davies pointed out that the project would entail the removal trees on the southern side and that the extent of the clearing and the limit of work needs to be shown on the plan. She asked how the construction would be staged if accessing the site from Broadway, as no tree clearing on the northern side of the panels is proposed. Mr. Fine replied that the trees are pretty sparse in that area. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 14 Kent Richards stated that the aerial view appears to show heavy tree coverage. Ms. Davies agreed and noted that the clearing of trees will be taken into consideration as of the stormwater management permitting process. Mr. Ayrassian stated that an existing conditions plan needs to be submitted inasmuch as a complete proposed site plan, including existing and proposed topography. Mr. Fine stated that he was hoping that the Board would waive those requirements. Ms. Davies stated that such a plan will be needed anyway for the stormwater management permit. Mr. Ayrassian questioned the justification for waiving the normal requirements. Mr. Fine asserted that they are not proposing any grading. Mr. Ayrassian stated that a plan needs to be submitted that verifies that statement. Mr. Fine stated that the owner needs to have a better idea of the feasibility of the project, before further investing in the plans. Cathy Merkle stated that without being able to review the specifics for the site, the Board cannot opine as to whether the plan is viable. Mr. Fine stated that he just needs to understand the full scope of the project. Mr. Fine answered that approximately half of the site will be cleared. Mr. Ayrassian estimated that is about 12,000 square feet of tree cover. Johnny Bender asked how much electricity is slated to be generated. Mr. Fine stated that it will be an 80 KW system. Sandra Varrieur asked how many houses would benefit from that amount of electricity. Mr. Fine replied that the typical house uses anywhere from 6 to 10 KW, so 10 to 15 houses could be powered with the solar energy. He stated that smaller fields like this help create resiliency for the grid. Kent Richards asked whether the trees will be removed along Pike Avenue. Mr. Fine answered no and that those trees would screen the solar array. He stated that the site dips about 15–feet down in elevation, so the foliage will create a satisfactory screen. Cathy Merkle asked whether the same approach will apply along Broadway. Mr. Fine replied that some of the trees in that area will be maintained. Mr. Ayrassian inquired about their timeline to file with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Fine stated that they will need to retain an engineer, so they may be up to a month out from filing. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 15 Mr. Ayrassian suggested it will likely be more like two or three months and therefore suggested that they consider withdrawing the application without prejudice at this time. He stated that the application is quite incomplete. He stated that it is not fair to the Board to expect it to keep the public hearing open indefinitely, particularly because of an incomplete application. Cathy Merkle pointed out that if the project is denied as proposed, they would not be permitted to refile for a period of two years. Mr. Fine requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. Cathy Merkle made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice his special permit application for property located at 235 Pike Avenue – Parcel F, Case #5505. Kent Richards seconded the motion. All voted in favor to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice his special permit application. The Board heard Case #5602, the application of Omar Halabi and 473 Washington Street, LLC a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.5(#21 B) TABLE OF ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS to establish a non–residential parking lot in a zoning district different from the zoning district of the principal use, and a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES under §17–5.6( C) LOCATION OF PARKING AND LOADING SPACES to eliminate the requisite twenty –five (25') foot wide landscaped buffer strip intended to separate an accessory non–residential parking lot from adjacent residential property, the subject premises being located at 473 Washington Street and 0 Washington Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #12, lot #59, #79A, #80A, and #81, located in the General Business zoning district and Single Residence –B zoning district. Speaking in favor of the application was attorney Jack Jacobi who stated that Better Auto conducts a car sales and service station business on the premises. He stated that the site abuts Rosewood Avenue to the south, Summit Street to the west which is a paper street, and BJ’s Gas Station to the north. He stated that the site contains an existing parking lot. He stated his client’s intent to construct a driveway from the existing parking lot immediately off Washington Street to access the rear portion of the property where there is an existing paved area and to convert it into parking area to accommodate ten (10) additional parking spaces. He stated that this additional parking capacity would only be accessed by employees. He stated that operating the business on the site is very tight, the terrain is sloped, and difficult to utilize. He stated that the driveway would involve less than 2,500 square feet of disturbance and therefore, would not require a stormwater management permit. He stated that they are taking the position that the proposed parking area would be defined as accessory parking, rather than an expansion of the business. He stated that no repair work or automobile sales are proposed on the rear parking lot. He stated that his client has met with the neighbors and has pledged to install a fence around the property so that no one can access the lot from Summit Street. He stated that one security light is proposed. Cathy Merkle asked if cars would be parked overnight on the proposed rear parking lot. Speaking in favor of the application was Omar Halabi who answered yes. Cathy Merkle noted that she would be concerned about security, if that is the case. Attorney Jacobi presented the photometric plan. He explained that a neighbor, Mr. Paiva of 38 Sweetland Avenue, had expressed concern with the lighting plan. He stated that Mr. Paiva is of the opinion that the lighting from the site would create a nuisance and be seen from his house. He noted that several hundred feet separate Mr. Paiva’s house from the proposed parking lot. The Board read into the record the letter from Joseph Paiva of 38 Sweetland Avenue, dated March 16, 2022. Ms. Davies expressed her concern about the nuisance the lighting would pose to residents along Hill Street. She asked whether the applicant had considered petitioning to rezone the rear portion of the property from ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 16 Single Residence–B to General Business so that all of the property is zoned General Business. She noted that this would eliminate the need for the variance. Attorney Jacobi pointed out that if the property were rezoned, the proposed activities would all be by–right and the matter would not be before the Board and there would be no opportunity to impose any conditions. Mr. Ayrassian noted that the end goal could be accomplished with either approach. Ms. Davies noted that the Board granted similar relief for the adjacent BJ’s gas station, but argued that this site does not have the topographic characteristics to justify a variance. She expressed concern with the business use expanding into the “Residential” zoning district. Mr. Ayrassian stated that the question is whether the Board feels they should deny the relief to prevent the intrusion of business and business activities into the abutting “Residential” zoning district. Cathy Merkle stated that she agreed with the concern and suggested that the City should move forward with the Planning Director’s idea of conducting a corridor study and revisit the question of the zoning in that area of the City. Sandy Varrieur sought confirmation that the entire site would be fenced. Attorney Jacobi showed her the proposed fencing on the plan. He asked whether the Board was amenable to a 6–foot high stockade fence. Ms. Davies noted a stockade fence is the best option to create a screen for the neighbors. Attorney Jacobi noted that its purpose is to just prevent people from driving up the paper street to access the lot, so it could be either chain link or stockade. Speaking in opposition was José Alves of 26 Rosewood Avenue who stated that he is concerned with the additional lighting posing a potential nuisance. He stated that Mr. Halabi has a nice business and performs good work, but currently has flatbeds dumping cars at the site, which is increasing the traffic by his home. He stated that up to ten vehicles being parked on a residentially zoned property abutted by homes that have no buffer or screen is an eye sore. Ms. Davies asked the applicant whether he utilizes flatbeds to deliver vehicles for repair. Speaking in favor was Christopher Kairouz who answered sometimes. Ms. Davies asked whether flatbed trucks would be delivering to the proposed parking lot. Mr. Kairouz answered no. Cathy Merkle noted that normally large trucks pull over to the side of the street to unload, which creates a traffic hazard. She suggested they park on the property between the two buildings to unload cars directly to the garage. Mr. Kairouz stated that he wished he knew that Mr. Alves had concerns about the deliveries, as he would have addressed things sooner. He agreed to pull the trucks onto the site between the buildings to unload them. Johnny Bender expressed concern with the use being an eyesore for neighbors. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 17 Cathy Merkle stated that she did not think anyone would be able to see anything after the proposed fence is installed. Attorney Jacobi emphasized that only one security light on the side of the building is proposed. Mr. Kairouz suggested they could utilize a motion sensor, so that the light is not on all night. Attorney Jacobi added that the fixture will be dark sky compliant and directed downwards. The Board requested revised plans be submitted showing the location of the proposed fencing, as discussed. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard the continued public hearing relative to Case #5593, application of JS Fuller TIC, LLC & Et. al. for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–12.0 FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT to perform excavation work within the 100–year floodplain in association with the construction of a proposed 20,000± square foot warehouse building, the subject premises being located at 50 Fuller Avenue, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #21, lot #272 and #273, and Assessor ’s plat #24, lot #43A and #44A, located in the Industrial zoning district. Cathy Merkle made a motion to continue the public hearing to. Kent Richards seconded the motion. All voted in favor to continue the public hearing. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard the continued public hearing relative to Case #5590, the application of No Fossil Fuel, LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.1 USE DESIGNATIONS to construct a ground –mounted solar photovoltaic facility, the subject premises being located at 179 Peckham Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #209, lot #3, located in the Single Residence –D zoning district. Cathy Merkle made a motion to continue the public hearing. Sandy Varrieur seconded the motion. All voted in favor to continue the public hearing. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5589, the application of Morin’s Realty, LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to accommodate existing size and location of truck loading spaces and the location of site driveways under §17–5.8( H) PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS , §17–5.9( C) GENERAL PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS , and §17–5.2 OFF –STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS , a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–5.8( C) PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS to allow the installation of bollards in place of the requisite concrete bumpers for off–street parking stalls, a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum front yard setback requirement pursuant to §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate the construction of an addition, and a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES at two locations from the minimum front yard setback requirement pursuant to §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate renovations to the existing truck dock, the subject premises being located at 95 Frank Mossberg Drive, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #146, lot #6B, located in the Industrial zoning district. Cathy Merkle made a motion to continue the public hearing. Sandy Varrieur seconded the motion. All voted in favor to continue the public hearing. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 18 The Board heard the continued public hearing relative to Case #5582, the application of Anthony Properties, LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.5(23) TABLE OF ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS for drive–up windows associated with restaurants, a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS from the minimum off–street parking stall dimensions under §17–5.1 OFF –STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS , a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–10.2 EARTH REMOVAL for an earth removal operation, a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the maximum number of stories for a residential building under §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS , and a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the maximum curb cut width under §17–5.9( D) GENERAL PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS associated with the construction of 354 multi–family residential units contained in four buildings, two commercial/restaurant buildings, a children ’s day care center, parking lots, travel lanes, landscaping, lighting, grading, stormwater management system, water and sewer infrastructure, utilities, the subject premises being located at 754 Newport Avenue, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #69, lot #26B, located in the General Business zoning district and General Residence –A zoning district . Cathy Merkle made a motion to continue the public hearing. Kent Richards seconded the motion. All voted in favor to continue the public hearing. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard the continued public hearing relative to Case #5569, the application of Bright Path Investments, LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing non–conforming residential structure and a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum front yard setback requirement pursuant to §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to construct a two–family dwelling, the subject premises being located at 22 Mann Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #3, lot #1, located in the Industrial zoning district. Kent Richards made a motion to continue the public hearing. Sandra Varrieur seconded the motion. All voted in favor to grant an extension of time. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard the continued public hearing relative to Case #5565, the application of Beacon Compassion, Inc. for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–10.15 MARIJUANA BUSINESS USES to establish a Marijuana Business (cultivation, manufacturing, and medical marijuana treatment center), the subject premises being located at 30 Franklin McKay Road, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #148, lot #5A, located in the Industrial zoning district. Cathy Merkle made a motion to continue the public hearing. Sandy Varrieur seconded the motion. All voted in favor to continue the public hearing. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board held a business meeting. The Board discussed Case #5601, the application of Gary Demers for Dodge Mill Realty LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming use to convert a garage into an ice cream shop, the subject premises being located at 200 North Main Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #49, lot #147, located in the General Business zoning district and Industrial zoning district. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 19 Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, use and allow a retail ice cream establishment to conduct business in the existing garage located on the premises, as shown on the site plan. Sandra Varrieur seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, use and allow a retail ice cream establishment to conduct business in the existing garage located on the premises, as shown on the site plan. Sandra Varrieur seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. The Board attached conditions. The Board discussed Case #5603, the application of Build to Suit, Inc. on behalf of BioLife Plasma Services for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.1 USE DESIGNATIONS to establish a blood plasma donation center, the subject premises being located at the South Attleboro Square shopping plaza at 287 Washington Street, more specifically in Unit #5A and Unit #5B, Assessor ’s plat #14, lot #73, located in the Planned Highway Business zoning district. Catherine Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.1 USE DESIGNATIONS for a blood plasma donation center to be established in Unit #5A and Unit #5B at the South Attleboro Square shopping plaza, as described herein and as shown on the site plan, the subject premises being located at 287 Washington Street. Kent Richards seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. The Board attached conditions. The Board reviewed all remaining correspondence. The Board tabled the pending minutes of June 10, 2021, July 8, 2021, August 12, 2021, September 9, 2021, September 9, 2021 (Executive Session), September 23, 2021, October 28, 2021, November 9, 2021, November 9, 2021 (Executive Session), November 10, 2021, November 18, 2021, December 9, 2021, December 15, 2021 (Executive Session), December 16, 2021, December 30, 2022 (Executive Session), January 13, 2022, February 10, 2022, and March 3, 2022 The meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – MARCH 24, 2022 PAGE 20