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 NOVEMBER 9, 2023 In accordance with the provisions of the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, as amended, public hearings were held on Thursday, November 9, 2023 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, John Camara, Kathy Rautenstrauch, Kent Richards, and Sandra Varrieur Members Absent: None The Board heard Case #5689, the application of John Camara for a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum front yard setback requirement under §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate the construction of a farmer ’s porch, the subject premises being located at 562 South Main Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #103, lot #222, located in the General Residence –B zoning distric t. Ms. Merkle announced that Mr. Camara is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and would be recusing himself from the public hearing. Mr. Camara left the meeting room. Speaking in favor of the application of Meg Camara of 562 South Main Street who asked the Board to continue the public hearing. Ms. 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 to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5692, the application of Vitaly Evdokimov for a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum side yard setback requirement under §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate the construction of a second means of egress and a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming three–family structure, the subject premises being located at 1 Howard Avenue , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #28, lot #357, located in the General Residence –A zoning district. Speaking in favor of the petition was the homeowner, Vitaly Evdokimov. He explained that he is before the Board asking to construct a staircase on the back of the house for the 2nd egress for the third floor apartment. Ms. Merkle confirmed that this was the only possible location. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 1 Mr. Evdokimon replied yes. Ms. Merkle asked if it would be replacing an existing staircase. Mr. Evdokimov explained that there is a staircase on the front of the unit, but it is no longer compliant, so need to add a new one to the rear of the dwelling. Director of Planning and Development Gary Ayrassian noted that the lot is very undersized and it does not appear that the applicant has anywhere else to put it. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5698, the application of Jacob Silberstein for variances pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum front, side, and rear yard setback requirements under §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate the construction of a garage and addition; and a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming single –family structure, the subject premises being located at 53 Garden Street , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #32, lot #71, located in the General Residence –A zoning district. Speaking in favor of the petition was Jacob Silberstein who presented the application. He distributed photographs of the rear of his property. He stated that his proposal is to remove the existing garage and replace it with a new one on same location. He stated that the proposed garage would have an unfinished second floor. He stated that he also proposes to remove the existing mudroom and add a larger addition with an exit to the rear. Ms. Merkle asked if the garage is bigger than the existing one. Mr. Silberstein said it is a little bit wider. He confirmed that the existing garage is not attached to the house and neither would the proposed garage. He indicated that the existing garage has a stone foundation that needs to be replaced. Mr. Ayrassian inquired about the size of the existing mudroom. Mr. Silberstein replied 3′x5.5′ and that he would like to increase its size. Mr. Ayrassian asked if the structures already project into the minimum yard setbacks. Mr. Silberstein replied yes, that they all do. The Board discussed the size of the lot, which is 3,325 square feet. Mr. Silberstein requested to amend the application to include a request for a variance to exceed the maximum permissible building area percentage. The Board voted to amend the application to include a request for a variance to exceed the maximum permissible building area percentage. Ms. Merkle continued the hearing and asked Mr. Silberstein to submit the precise percentage. Mr. Silberstein noted that he abuts the train tracks, so there are no neighbors to the rear. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 2 Mr. Ayrassian asked if he had spoken with his neighbors about his proposal. Mr. Silberstein stated that he had, but the house on one side is vacant and being flipped, while the house on the other side is rented by people with whom he has a friendly relationship with. Mark Ethier of 21 Olive Street spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and felt that if anyone wants to invest in that neighborhood, the Board should let them do it. He stated he is excited to see investment in the neighborhood. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5696, the application of Jonathan Bindbeutel for an appeal pursuant to §17–8.8 APPEALS of the Building Inspector ’s issuance of a building permit, the subject premises being located at 48 Ashton Road, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #49, lot #94A, located in the Single Residence –B zoning district. Speaking in favor of the appeal was Jonathan Bindbeutel who read a prepared statement (which is incorporated into the records on file in the Department of Planning and Development). He stated that he is married and has three children. He stated that the lived at their current address for ten years. He stated that a building permit was issued despite it being denied by Planning Department and the form previously not endorsed. He referred to a letter submitted to the Board by attorney Edward Casey and disagreed with it. He reviewed the other towns’ definition of hammerhead turnarounds and that they are not treated at cul–de–sacs. He stated that Rounds Place is very narrow and does not end in a cul–de–sac. He stated that the applicant for the building permit has essentially asked the city to create a new rule for frontage. He stated that the only buildable section of the lot is an elevated piece of land located forty feet from his backyard. He stated that in order to build on it, a portion of a 100 year old retaining will need to be removed. He questioned whether the lot is suitable for building at all. He recommended that the Board conduct a site visit. He stated that there are a dozen neighbors present at the meeting and that he has a signed petition, which he submitted to the Board. Cathy Merkle stated that she made a site visit to Rounds Place and Ashton Road. She stated driving around was challenging because should could not see the houses. She stated that the many of the trees still have many leaves. She stated that she understands Mr. Bindbeutel’s thoughts and concerns. She asked for show of hands of those persons in the Chambers who supported the appeal. Mr. Ayrassian counted fifteen hands. Speaking in favor of the appeal was Lisa Baldwin who stated that she abuts the subject lot. She stated that she has lived at her current address for 23 years and expressed concern about development. She stated that this is the second time that she has faced someone trying to build on the subject. She urged the Board to conduct a site visit. She stated that there is a down slope on Rounds Place and that this steep slope will impact privacy. She stated that flooding is a huge concern on Payson Street and Rounds Place. She stated that the subject lot abuts wetlands and is located in a flood zone. She stated that she is at the low–point and that Rounds Place is even lower. She stated that undeveloped land helps with flooding. She stated that the clear cutting of trees will negatively impact those properties at the low–point. Speaking in favor of the appeal was Han Schaefer who stated that the street he lives on is parallel to Ashton Road. He stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 65 years. He stated that subject lot is not a great site to build a house due to what has been done to create the lot. He stated how the engineer determined the lot frontage and that he felt it was “a little ‘schemey’”. He referenced the city’s Zoning Ordinance and talked about lot frontage and lot width. He stated that the subject lot looks like a butterflied pork chop lot. He stated that one cannot use Rounds Place for frontage because of the floodplain and wetlands and therefore one has to use Ashton Road for access to the subject lot. He stated that the site plan that accompanied the building ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 3 permit application does not show any grading. He stated that the proposed driveway to Ashton Road will probably drop 20 to 25 feet. He stated that runoff will come off the property and onto the road. He stated that a portion of the wall will have to gotten rid of. Mr. Ayrassian pointed out that the matter before the Board is to determine whether to uphold or overturn the Building Inspector’s decision to issue a building permit. He stated to place the matter in the proper frame, topography is not a factor, lot width is not a factor, runoff from the construction of one–family dwellings and the construction of two–family dwellings is not a factor because those land uses are exempt from the city’s Local Stormwater Management Ordinance. He also noted that there is no requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that access to a house has come from where the lot frontage is established. Speaking in opposition of the appeal was attorney Edward Casey who stated that he represents Edson Silva and Kayleigh Viera who hope that they will be able to build their home on the subject lot. He stated that they took out an $840,000.oo construction loan. He noted that both the construction loan was issued and that the closing took place after the building permit was issued. He stated that the building permit application met the requirements established by the Building Inspector, including whether a lot satisfies the minimum frontage, width, lot area, and setback requirements. He stated that the Planning Board is the Board that decides whether or not a plan ought to be endorsed and whether it can be made suitable for recording. He stated that there are standards that guide the Planning Board in its evaluation of a plan. He stated that if the plan shows new lots, the Planning Board evaluates whether the new lots have the minimum frontage and if so, the plan can be endorsed and if not, the Board would deny the plan. He stated that the minimum lot frontage is satisfied on Rounds Place but the driveway, the access, is from Ashton Road. He stated that the Planning Board determined that there was sufficient frontage and the plan was recorded. He stated that the Building Inspector also determined the lot satisfied the minimum lot width requirement. He stated that the basis of the appeal application is for the Zoning Board to determine whether or not the Building Inspector was correct in issuing the building permit. He stated that there is a Form a Plan that was endorsed many years ago by the Planning Board, which showed frontage on Rounds Place along the hammerhead turnaround. He stated that in 2019, Planning Board was troubled by this question of lot frontage on the end of the road and allowed it to be constructively approved. He stated that the Planning Board did not sign the plan. He stated that Rounds Place was extended in 1979 by way of a definitive plan approved by the Planning Board and that the plan showed a hammerhead turnaround. He stated that hammerhead turnarounds are allowed in the Board’s subdivision rules and regulations as an alternative cul–de–sac. He stated that in cul–de–sac, one counts the length along the edge of roadway for lot frontage. He stated that there are lots in the city where the hammerhead turnaround is used to satisfy the lot frontage. He stated that the interpretation made by the Building Inspector was made in fact and based on the decision of the Planning Board. Speaking in opposition of the appeal was John DeVergnes who stated that he purchased the property from Mr. Jim Friedman. He stated that he did not do any filings because he did not need any approvals from the city. He stated that after doing his due diligence and filing for the building, to our surprise the Planning Department did not sign off on the building permit. He stated that the Building Inspector issued the permit. He handed out documents. He stated that hammerhead turnarounds are used at the end of deadend streets and he presented a definitive subdivision plan off Steere Street approved by the Planning Board showing a hammerhead turnaround at the end of the Paddock Lane. He stated that length along the edge of hammerhead turnaround was used lot frontage. He stated that no variance was needed. He asked that if this is not clearly written in the regulations, where else could he go by except for past example. Mr. Ayrassian asked if the layout of Rounds Place included the hammerhead. Attorney Casey replied yes, that the definitive subdivision plan approved by the Planning Board in 1979 showed the hammerhead turnaround. Mr. Ayrassian stated that it is clear to him that since the hammerhead turnaround on Rounds Place was laid out under subdivision control law in the 1979 definitive subdivision plan, then there is no question that the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 4 perimeter of the hammerhead is allowed to be used for lot frontage. He stated that the more current definitive subdivision plan that was approved about 30 years ago showing Paddock Lane serves as another example where the perimeter of the hammerhead turnaround is allowed to be used for lot frontage. He spoke at length to explain that the Planning Board’s approval of Rounds Place that included the layout of the hammerhead turnaround at the end of the cul-de–sac served the purpose for lot frontage. He stated that hammerhead turnarounds are provided at the end of paper streets to accommodate fire trucks for example, but that in those cases, it is not laid out in the roadway but on private property and this in this case, the top of roadway may not be used for lot frontage. He repeated that as long as the hammerhead turnaround was laid out as part of the 1979 definitive subdivision plan and recorded, the entire length of the hammerhead can count towards frontage. Speaking in opposition of the appeal was Darryl Ware who stated that he was born and raised in Attleboro. He stated that he bought the property for his step daughter so she could build a house in Attleboro and relocate here with her husband and her newborn child from Boston. He stated that he made sure that the land was buildable before he purchased it. He stated that neighbors came out from their houses and threatened to call the cops when he was putting installing hay bales and silt fencing. He stated that the neighbors are still disgruntled and unhappy. Speaking in opposition of the appeal was Kayleigh Lubera who resides at 130 Coleridge Street in Boston. She stated that she and her fiancé are the owners of the subject lot. She stated that they met in Boston when working as a nurse in Mass General. She stated that they have a nine month old daughter. She stated that his daughter attends a daycare in Bellingham. She said she was born and raised in Pawtucket and is alumni of Bishop Feehan. She stated that they have worked very hard to get and that their goal is only to add to the community. She stated that she wanted the neighbors to see the face behind the building. Attorney Casey provided the Board with a copy of the deed and mortgage. He provided the Board with a section of a legal book that explains the action of endorsing a Form A plan. Speaking neither for nor against the appeal was Steve Ebling who stated that he lives at 18 Rounds Place and that he has lived there since 1978. He stated that he has been pumping water out his basement since 1978. He stated that he has one pump that runs everyday. He stated that his concern is the drainage that will flow off the land. Mr. Ayrassian asked if the source of his flooding in his basement is groundwater or runoff from a rain event. Mr. Ebling replied groundwater. Speaking neither for nor against the appeal was Violet Ebling who stated that he lives at 18 Rounds Place. She stated that they had to install French drains and pumps. She stated that rain comes down the road and down the hill and that issues with water in the neighborhood are worse now than before. She stated that she is not the only person in the neighborhood who has issues with flooding. She stated that Mr. Rounds build the roadway and that it built for emergency vehicles to turn around. She expressed concerns about more water. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5697, the application of 37 Union Street Attleboro LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–16.3 ADMINISTRATION to vary from the sign regulations pursuant to §17–16.9 TABLE OF PERMITTED SIGNS & DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS in association with a multi–family residential development , the subject premises being located at 37 Union Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #28, lot #397, located in the Central Business zoning district. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 5 Speaking in favor of the application was Tom Taricano of Fast Signs who stated that they are proposing two signs at two different entrances. He stated that one sign is to direct people to the residential parking lot and the other sign is to direct people to the apartment building’s main entrance. He stated that they are proposing to install the first sign two (2′) feet back from the sidewalk. He stated that as of now, the double–faced sign will not be illuminated but they may plan some ground mounted lighting at some point. Cathy Merkle noted that the directional sign serves motorists in both directions of travel. Mr. Ayrassian asked if they could move the sign slightly further away from the edge of the grass without compromising the visibility of the sign. He expressed concern that the current proposed location of the sign at the parking lot would obstruct sight lines to oncoming traffic on Union Street. Speaking in favor of the application was Steve Schwade, the owner of Fast Signs. He stated that they drove in and out of the parking several times envisioning the location of the sign and that they did not think it would be an issue. He stated that they will install a mock sign made out of a sheet of plywood so that the Board can determine for itself whether the sign would obstruct sight lines. The Board asked Mr. Schwade to contact the staff when the mock sign is installed to that they may in turn inform the Board members. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was continued. The Board heard Case #5700, the application of Linda Pacheco for a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum lot area requirement under §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate the reconfiguration of a lot; the subject premises being located at 17 Jewel Avenue, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #44, lot #628 and #629, located in the Single Residence –A zoning district. Speaking in favor of the petition was Linda Pacheco who stated that she purchased the property with a double lot. She stated that she would like to carve out a portion of her lot to make it rectangular and to sell the residual piece of land to her neighbor would like to purchase it. She noted that this would make her lot and her neighbor’s lot of equal in size. Senior Land Use Planner Stephanie Davies stated that Ms. Pacheco needed to amend her application to include a request a special permit to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, lot. Ms. Pacheco made the request. The Board voted to allow Ms. Pacheco to amend her application to include a special permit to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, lot. Speaking in favor of the petition was Chantel Toomey of 21 Jewel Avenue who stated that she is Ms. Pacheco’s neighbor and would like to purchase the piece of land. She said that she has resided at the address for five years. She noted that she has two children, aged 2 and 8, and would like more yard space for her kids to run around. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5482A , the application of Ashli’s, Inc. d/b/a Zahara to amend a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–10.15 MARIJUANA BUSINESS USES to modify the approved hours of operation for a Marijuana Business (a marijuana retailer), the subject premises being located at ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 6 70 Frank Mossberg Drive, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #147, lot #5F, located in the Industrial zoning district. Speaking in favor of the petition was attorney Jack Jacobi of Coogan Smith, LLP who stated that the hours of operation granted in the original decision in December 2019, Case # 5482, were from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance was amended since that time and the provisions allow retail marijuana businesses to be open as late as 11:00 p.m. He stated that Zahara fills orders that have been placed but that some customers do not arrive at the facility on time or before the close of business. He stated that as a result, they then have to undo those orders. He explained that there is a lot of paperwork involved with placing and filling an order and that Zahara cannot just hope that all customers will pick–up order on time. He stated that his client is proposing to amend its special permit and request to extend their business hours only on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays only from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. He stated that Nova Farms, Zahara’s neighbor on Extension Street, received a special permit to open a marijuana retail operation on Route 1. He stated that since Nova Farms will relocate their marijuana retail operation from Extension Street to Route 1, he believes that marijuana related traffic will lessen dramatically in the industrial park. Ms. Merkle stated that part of the Board’s concern with Ashli’s/Zahara’s original application was traffic and the County Street neighbors, not so much with traffic volume in the Industrial Park. She said her other concern was the safety not only for the customers but also for the employees because there is not a lot of activity in that area of the Industrial Park at those hours. Attorney Jacobi said that the applicant emailed the Police Chief seeking his opinion regarding the proposed extended business hours and that the Police Chief emailed back expressing that he had no concerns. He distributed photographs to the Board illustrating where on County Street the vehicles would exit from the Industrial Park. He noted that the County Street residents opposite Frank Mossberg Drive have an extensive privacy fence that shield headlights from shining into the residential development. Ms. Merkle requested that the applicant forward the e–mail from the Police Chief in which he expressed this opinion that he did not have concerns with the proposed extended business hours. Speaking in favor of the application was Chairman of the United Regional Chamber of Commerce Jack Lank and a resident of 18 Lindsey Farm Lane, Attleboro, MA. He stated that Zahara has been a fabulous community member and noted that they contribute a lot of money to the city. He stated that the requested expansion of hours has the full support of the United Regional Chamber of Commerce. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5693, the application of Metalor Technologies USA Corporation for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming industrial structure by replacing and increasing the height of an existing smoke stack, the subject premises being located at 52 Gardner Street , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #42, lot #215A, #218–#221, #220A, and #221A–1, located in the Industrial zoning district. Speaking in favor was attorney Jack Jacobi. He stated that Metalor is in the process of upgrading its facility and as part of the renovations, the company discovered that the existing stack does not meet current environmental emissions standards. He stated that Metalor needs to replace the nitrous oxide scrubbers with a larger, more efficient, ones. He noted that MADEP has to approve the plan, which they will do after the Zoning Board renders its decision. He noted that the smokestack is located within the 25–foot bufferyard. He stated that they conducted a modeling analysis, which concluded that the taller stack would result in a reduction in decibel levels from approximately 92 down to 75, when measured three feet from the stack. Mr. Richards asked about the hours of operation. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 7 Deb Westman of Metalor stated that the hours are 5:30 a.m. to midnight. Ms. Merkle inquired about the color of the stack. Ms. Westman explained that it will be a grey plastic PVC. Ms. Merkle noted that this color would blend with the background. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5690, application of Greenwich Bay Holdings IV, LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to expand a pre–existing, non–conforming, residential use to accommodate the construction of two mobile homes in place of a mobile home to be demolished, the subject premises being located at 1346 Newport Avenue , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #27, lot #67–#82 and #84–#104, located in the Industrial zoning district . Speaking in favor was attorney Jack Jacobi who explained that the mobile home park has been in existence for quite some time and the past owner allowed it to deteriorate. He stated that the park is located in an industrial zone and constitutes a pre–existing non–conforming situation. He stated that the new owner is upgrading the park. He stated that one of the mobile homes is in very bad shape and needs to be demolished and replaced. He explained that the owner would like to replace it with two new mobile homes. He explained that mobile homes will sell for approximately $140,000.00. He noted that the proposed mobile homes will not violate any dimensional regulations and will not overload any municipal water or sewer system. There being no one else to speak the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5691, the application of TRSS, LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–3.4(#18) TABLE OF USE REGULATIONS – RETAIL , SERVICE , COMMERCIAL to operate a self–storage facility , the subject premises being located at 400 O’Neil Boulevard, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #46, lot #56, located in the Industrial zoning district. Speaking in favor of the petition was attorney Jack Jacobi of Coogan Smith, LLP. He presented the conditions of the lot and noted that the manufacturing space is difficult to reuse for manufacturing purposes and the owner decided that it had to be repurposed. He stated that there is a great demand for self–storage. He stated that their proposal for a self–storage facility, and that self–storage facilities in general, is a very low traffic–volume generating use and that people do not visit their unit very often. He stated that although traffic is low, they are not intending or proposed to remove to remove the existing parking lot. He presented the interior floor plan layout. He stated that they are proposing to provide 322 self–storage units in Building A and 177 self–storage units in Building B. He stated that all self–storage units will be environmentally controlled. He noted that the applicant is proposing to reface the existing sign. He stated that the only entrance to the building for consumers will be from the rear parking lot. He stated that they plan to retain the existing lighting in the parking lot and on the building. He noted that the existing of–street parking stalls measure 9′x19′. He stated the self–storage units would be available to the public 24–hours on a daily basis. He stated that they will be able to enter the building by a code. He stated that a manager will be on the premises from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week. He stated that some part–time employees will be hired for maintenance and cleaning. He said that the anticipated number of customers on the premises at any time would be fewer than five. He stated that except for the front door that will be removed because it is not handicap–accessible, no other changes will be made to the brick on the front façade of the building. Ms. Merkle asked if the landscaping would remain the same and maintained. Attorney Jacobi replied yes. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 8 Mr. Ayrassian asked if interior access by customers is proposed between the two buildings. Speaking in favor of the petition was Ms. Kate Duggan of 130 Burnt Swamp Road, Wrentham, MA who replied no. Mr. Camara asked if there are any issues with the build–out due to the previous use of the building. Ms. Duggan replied that they are working on this. She stated that she will probably be required to install a vapor extraction system. Ms. Merkle asked if any of the underground and aboveground storage tanks on the property have been removed. Ms. Duggan stated that they have been and confirmed that everything has been decommissioned. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Board heard Case #5695, the application of Sturdy Memorial Hospital for special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.5 (#21 B) TABLE OF ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS to allow off–site parking stalls to be located in a zoning district different from that of the principal use, a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–5.6 LOCATION OF PARKING AND LOADING SPACES to allow off–street parking spaces off–site but within 300–feet of the principal use, and a special permit pursuant to §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to accommodate pre–existing, non–conforming, parking space dimensions, maneuvering area, and existing curb cuts; the subject premises being located at 49 Pearl Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #42, lot #263–#265, #279–#281, located in the Industrial zoning district . The Board heard Case #5699, the application of Sturdy Memorial Hospital, Inc. for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.5 (#21 B) TABLE OF ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS to allow off–site parking stalls located in a zoning district different from that of the principal use, a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the provisions pursuant to §17–5.1 OFF –STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS to reduce the required dimensions of off–street parking stalls , a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the provisions pursuant to §17–5.9(D) GENERAL PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS to exceed the maximum permissible entrance/exit driveway width, and a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the provisions pursuant to under §17–5.9(A) GENERAL PARKING AND LOADING SPACE STANDARDS to allow for parking within the front yard setback requirement, the subject premises being located on O’Neil Boulevard, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #42, lot #299A, located in the Industrial zoning district. Speaking in favor of the petition was William Murray of Places Associates, Inc., 256 Great Road, Littleton, MA. He distributed a lighting plan and photometric plan for the School Street parking lot. He explained that the Atwood Street parking lot exists. He said that it is already striped and has lighting. He noted that the property was purchased by Sturdy in 2017. He said the parking lot is located directly across from the Pearl Street parking lot, which was recently approved by the Zoning Board. He explained that this spaces in this parking lot are needed to satisfy the off–street parking requirements associated with the modernization and redevelopment of the Sturdy campus, in particular the emergency department. He explained that he understands from his discussions with the Building Commissioner that Sturdy can simply pave and restripe the existing lot and qualify for a parking lot. He noted that this kind of maintenance does not require Major Site Plan Review approval from the Planning Board or a permit from the Conservation Commission under the Local Stormwater Management Ordinance. He stated that School Street parking lot however is a different story and would need to be treated similarly to the Pearl Street and Gardner Street parking lots that were previously approved. He explained that the old Swank building occupied about 80% of the School Street property before it was demolished. He explained that that redevelopment of that parking lot will entails filing many applications ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 9 including variances and special permits and that they are getting ready to file with the Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Conservation Commission. He said that three quarters of the site is contaminated. He stated that he had a letter from his LSP who has opined that he will not allow stormwater infiltration and their proposal for stormwater management will be simply to connect to the storm pipes in O’Neil Boulevard. He said requested the Zoning Board to continue the School Street parking lot matter until the other applications are filed. He stated that the Atwood parking lot is straightforward. He noted that unless the board or staff has any questions, he respectfully requests that the board close the hearing and render a decision for that parking lot. He said Sturdy might come back at a future date to make improvements to the lot with landscaping and so forth, but for now the parking lot simply shows 95 striped spaces and Sturdy proposes to keep it that way until at least the construction project is done. There being no one else to speak, the Board closed the public hearing relative to Case #5695. There being no one else to speak, the Board continued the public hearing relative to Case #5699. The Board held a business meeting. Mayor DeSimone stated that there are two historically significant things that occurred. The first being the purchase of the Highland Country Club and secondly, the construction of the new high school. She stated that the activities at Highland Park have increased significantly since the time the city purchase the property. It is now the top choice for the new Council on Aging and that it also has become a recreational center, as cross–country tournaments are held there, which requires parking. She stated it has become a very poplar cross–country venue with lots of activity by Attleboro High School, Bishop Feehan High School, as well as college meets. She also stated that maintaining the parking lot at Highland Park would further the vision of former Mayor Dumas of an Emerald Necklace whereby all the green spaces in the city center are connected. Maintaining the Highland Park lot would allow residents to access the emerald necklace. She requested the Board to amend its decision as it applied to the removal of the parking lot and restoration. She stated that believes it is in the best interest of the city to keep it. She stated that most importantly, it is the spot for the location of the new senior center. Keeping the parking lot will unlock other potentials. Cathy Merkle asked if the intent is only for the Board to amend the decision by deleting the condition regarding signage or does it involve amending or changing the site plan or layout. Mr. Ayrassian stated parking lot will remain as constructed. Mayor DeSimone stated that the process of taking down the chain link fence has started as well as has the removal of the construction equipment. Mr. Ayrassian stated that there are two questions before the Board. The first is whether a public hearing is necessary to consider amending its May 19, 2019 decision; and secondly, to decide whether to amend the decision. He noted that the matter is pending before the Conservation Commission, which voted to hold a public hearing. He stated that the Commission held the public hearing, continued it, but did not yet render a decision because they did not have a quorum at their last meeting. He stated that at the Planning Board meeting earlier in the week on Monday night, the Planning Board voted not to hold a public hearing and then voted to amend its Major Site Plan Review decision. Parks and Forestry Superintendent Derek Corsi stated that Highland was purchased with a bit of a rush and the city had not given much foresight for its use or purposes. He stated that foresight says that keeping the parking lot is good sense. He stated that seeing the potential of the parking lot and how much people are using the it, he and the Mayor see the potential for this land. He presented a power point slide show, which displayed concepts for connecting the parking lot to Sweet Forest, to the High School and Capron Park, to Judith Robbins Park, the Kevin Dumas Walkway, Balfour Riverwalk and the Ten Mile River. Park & Forestry Superintendent Derek Corsi stated that when the city purchased the Highland Country Club, the then Mayor had no plan in place for its use. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 10 Sandy Varrieur asked where it will start. Mr. Corsi replied the upper parking lot as of now but it could change. Cathy Merkle made a motion to amend Decision #5452 dated May 19, 2019 by deleting Condition #4 of the decision and thereby allow the removal of contractor signage and by deleting any reference in said decision or contained in the approved site plan entitled “ATTLEBORO HIGH SCHOOL – INTERIM PARKING DRAWINGS – BID PACKAGE #2”, drawn by Kaestle Boos Associates, Inc., 16 Chestnut Street, Suite 301, Foxborough, MA 02035, dated April 23, 2019 relating to said parking lot being removed and the area restored upon completion of construction of the new High School. Kent Richards seconded the motion. All voted in favor. With an Appointment to Speak before the Board was attorney Jack Jacobi of Coogan Smith, LLC representing 54 Union Street, LLC regarding its 43–unit Downtown Residential Cluster Development that is under construction at the corner of at Union Street and Dunham Street, Case #5488. The Board read the letter from attorney Jack Jacobi, Coogan Smith, LLP, dated November 3, 2023, requesting the Board to amend a condition of approval relative to the location of off–street parking spaces associated with the downtown residential cluster development currently under construction at 54 Union Street, Case #5488. Attorney Jacobi stated that it was their intention to obtain a lease agreement with Mr. Jim Friedman who owns the parking lot across the street from the development in order to satisfy the Boar’s condition of approval regarding off–street parking. He stated that in fact they submitted a letter to the Board in August of last year that they had an agreement in place. He stated that Mr. Friedman has now backed out of that agreement for any lease agreement and is only willing to allow parking on a per diem basis. He stated that he spoke with the planning staff about the possibility of securing some off–street parking spaces at the municipal parking lot on Bank Street. He noted however that they are located slightly more than the maximum 1,000–feet allowed by the Zoning Ordinance between the lot that the use is located on and the parking facility. He asked if the Board would be amenable to allow them to enter into an agreement with the city to lease twelve (12) parking spaces at the Bank Street municipal parking and thirteen (13) parking spaces on a daily basis at Mr. Friedman’s parking lot. Cathy Merkle expressed concern about the distance between the development site and the municipal parking lot exceeding the 1000–feet. Cathy Merkle made a motion to amend Decision #5488 and allow the distance between the downtown residential cluster development which municipal off–street parking stalls are to serve and the municipal parking facility to exceed the maximum permissible distance of 1,000–foot pursuant to the provisions of §17–5.7 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS by 118–feet and thereby allow 54 Union Street, LLC to negotiate a lease agreement with the city for twelve (12) parking stalls at the Bank Street municipal parking lot as well as allow 54 Union Street, LLC to provide twelve (12) parking stalls located within 300–feet of the subject premises. Sandra Varrieur seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The Board discussed Case #5695, the application of Sturdy Memorial Hospital for special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.5 (#21 B) TABLE OF ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS to allow off–site parking stalls to be located in a zoning district different from that of the principal use, a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–5.6 LOCATION OF PARKING AND LOADING SPACES to allow off–street parking spaces off–site but within 300–feet of the principal use, and a special permit pursuant to §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to accommodate pre–existing, non–conforming, parking space dimensions, maneuvering area, and existing curb cuts; the subject premises being located ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 11 at 49 Pearl Street, more specifically Assessor ’s plat #42, lot #263–#265, #279–#281, located in the Industrial zoning district. Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS under §17–3.5 (#21B) TABLE OF ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS to accommodate off–site parking stalls to be located in a zoning district (Industrial) different from that of the principal use (General residence–A), as shown on the site plan entitled “ATWOOD ST PARKING LAYOUT PLAN PREPARED FOR STURDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ATTLEBORO, MA,” drawn by William E. Murray, Registered Landscape Architect, Places Associates, 256 Great Road, Littleton, MA 01460, dated September 21, 2023. Sandy 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 §17–5.6 LOCATION OF PARKING AND LOADING SPACES to allow off–street parking stalls off–site but within 300 feet of the nearest boundary line of the lot on which the principal use is maintained (the lot is approximately 204 feet from the main Sturdy campus), as shown on the site plan entitled “ATWOOD ST PARKING LAYOUT PLAN PREPARED FOR STURDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ATTLEBORO, MA,” drawn by William E. Murray, Registered Landscape Architect, Places Associates, 256 Great Road, Littleton, MA 01460, dated September 21, 2023. Sandy Varrieur seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to utilize a pre–existing, non–conforming, parking lot in its current condition, including parking stall dimensions, maneuvering space, and curb–cuts, as shown on the site plan entitled “ATWOOD ST PARKING LAYOUT PLAN PREPARED FOR STURDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ATTLEBORO, MA,” drawn by William E. Murray, Registered Landscape Architect, Places Associates, 256 Great Road, Littleton, MA 01460, dated September 21, 2023. Sandy 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 and §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to utilize a pre–existing, non–conforming, parking lot in its current condition, including parking stall dimensions, maneuvering space, and curb–cuts, as shown on the site plan entitled “ATWOOD ST PARKING LAYOUT PLAN PREPARED FOR STURDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ATTLEBORO, MA,” drawn by William E. Murray, Registered Landscape Architect, Places Associates, 256 Great Road, Littleton, MA 01460, dated September 21, 2023. Sandy Varrieur seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. The Board attached conditions. The Board discussed Case #5693, application of Metalor Technologies USA Corporation for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming industrial structure by replacing an existing smoke stack with a new one and increasing its height, the subject premises being located at 52 Gardner Street , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #42, lot #215A, #218–#221, #220A, and #221A–1, located in the Industrial zoning district . Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, industrial structure by replacing an existing smokestack with a new one and increasing its height, as shown on the site plan entitled “PROPOSED NOX SCRUBBER STACK,” drawn by Douglas R. Annino, Registered Architect, Annino Incorporated, 125 North Washington Street, North Attleborough, MA, dated June 23, 2023, revised through September 14, 2023. Kathy Rautenstrauch seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, industrial structure by replacing an existing smokestack with a new one and increasing its height, as shown on the site plan entitled “PROPOSED NOX SCRUBBER STACK,” drawn by Douglas R. Annino, Registered Architect, Annino Incorporated, 125 North Washington Street, North Attleborough, MA, dated June 23, 2023, revised through September 14, 2023. Kathy Rautenstrauch seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. The Board attached conditions The Board discussed Case #5690, application of Greenwich Bay Holdings IV, LLC for a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 12 expand a pre–existing, non–conforming, residential use to accommodate the construction of two mobile homes in place of a mobile home to be demolished, the subject premises being located at 1346 Newport Avenue , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #27, lot #67–#82 and #84–#104, located in the Industrial zoning district . Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to expand a pre–existing, non–conforming, residential use by replacing an existing mobile home that will be demolished with the construction of two mobile homes in place thereof, as shown on the site plan entitled “PLAN OF NEW MOBILE HOME PLACEMENT, EASTLAND PARK, SO. ATTLEBORO, MA,” drawn by Peter V. Cipolla, Jr., P.O. Box 8662, Cranston, RI 02920, dated August 11, 2023. Sandy Varrieur 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 and §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS to expand a pre–existing, non–conforming, residential use to accommodate the construction of two mobile homes in place of an existing mobile home that will be demolished, as shown on the site plan entitled “PLAN OF NEW MOBILE HOME PLACEMENT, EASTLAND PARK, SO. ATTLEBORO, MA,” drawn by Peter V. Cipolla, Jr., P.O. Box 8662, Cranston, RI 02920, dated August 11, 2023. Sandy Varrieur the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. The Board attached conditions. The Board discussed Case #5692, application of Vitaly Evdokimov for a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES from the minimum side yard setback requirement under §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate the construction of a second means of egress and a special permit pursuant to §17–9.0 SPECIAL PERMITS and §17–6.0 NON –CONFORMING USES , STRUCTURES , AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, three–family multi–family dwelling, the subject premises being located at 1 Howard Avenue , more specifically Assessor ’s plat #28, lot #357, located in the General Residence –A zoning district . Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a variance pursuant to §17–8.9 VARIANCES of twelve and one–half (12.5') feet from the minimum front yard setback requirement of thirty (30') feet from the provisions pursuant to §17–4.9 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REGULATIONS to accommodate the construction of a second means of egress onto the pre–existing non–conforming three–family multi–family dwelling located at 1 Howard Avenue, as shown on the site plan. Kent Richards seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. Cathy Merkle made a motion to grant a special permit pursuant to §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, residential structure to accommodate the construction of a second means of egress onto the pre–existing non–conforming three–family multi–family dwelling located at 1 Howard Avenue, as shown on the site plan. Kent Richards 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 a special permit pursuant to §17–6.0 NON–CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS to alter a pre–existing, non–conforming, residential structure to accommodate the construction of a second means of egress onto the pre–existing non–conforming three–family multi–family dwelling located at 1 Howard Avenue, as shown on the site plan. Kent Richards seconded the motion. A discussion followed. All voted in favor. The Board attached conditions. Cathy Merkle made a motion to delete Condition #4 of the May 19, 2023 variance issued to the City of Attleboro for the construction of a parking lot associated with the new Attleboro High School (located off Rathbun Willard Drive), Case #5452, and to delete any reference in said decision or contained in the approved site plan entitled “ATTLEBORO HIGH SCHOOL – INTERIM PARKING DRAWINGS – BID PACKAGE #2”, drawn by Kaestle Boos Associates, Inc., 16 Chestnut Street, Suite 301, Foxborough, MA 02035, dated April 23, 2019 relating to said parking lot being removed and the area restored upon completion of construction of the new High School. Kathy Rautenstrauch seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The Board read all of the correspondence. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 13 The Board approved the minutes of September 14, 2023 and October 26, 2023. The meeting Adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES – NOVEMBER 9, 2023 PAGE 14