Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder ZONING Drive Fitchburg, Massachusetts MINUTES June 10, 2014 ________________________________________________________________________________ ATTENDANCE: Michael McLaughlin, James Concannon-Clerk, Joseph Marrama, Joseph Byrne _________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order LM Pledge of Allegiance: All 2. Communications: Attendance: JC, JB, 3. Hearings MM & JM 7:00PM ZBA-2014-15 Steve Scharmett 511 John Fitch Highway Variance under §181.5363 to construct a two (2) sided electronic reader board sign in the Central Business District 47/19/0 which are prohibited in all zoning districts per §181.5363 Mike McLaughlin - We are a seven member board when all members are in attendance. Tonight we have four members in attendance which constitutes a quorum. You will need what is known as a Super Majority for your case to pass which would be a unanimous vote tonight. I would like to offer you the opportunity to come back when a full board is in attendance or choose to continue tonight. Petitioner chose to continue.- Doug Farnsworth Representing Mr. Scharmett – Steve has leased this property, renovated the entire property and put all new equipment for a car wash. There was a pre- existing 6 x 10 sign that we replaced the face on and would like to replace the outdated message center with an electronic message center. Mr. McLaughlin – What would the sign size be? Mr. Farnsworth - The sign that’s there now is a 3 ft. x 8 ft., the new sign would be a 50 in. x 90 in., slightly bigger. Mr. McLaughlin – So you would be around the 4 ft. x 8 ft. range. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Opened to the Board: Mr. Concannon – No questions at this time. Joe Byrne – The sign that you are putting up is going on the existing sign? Mr. Farnsworth – Correct. Mr. Byrne - The reader will be the middle board? Mr. Farnsworth – Correct. At this time Mr. Farnsworth handed the Board members an example of what the planned sign would look like with a photo of the existing sign to show the comparison (Exhibit A). Mike McLaughlin – The pole in the picture, does it belong to the car wash or Lake George? Mr. Farnsworth – I believe Lake George. Mike McLaughlin – There is a small piece of land between these two businesses, do you know who it belongs to? Mr. Farnsworth – I believe it’s a combination the pole does not belong to the car wash. Mike Mc Laughlin – Is the sign one or two sided? What are the messages you plan to display? – Mr. Farnsworth – It is two sided, two signs mounted back to back. The messages displayed would be for the car wash, public service messages and Steve would also like to display movie info and time schedule for his father’s Drive-In. Jim Concannon – A condition we normally impose is no outside advertising, only advertising for the business where the sign is located is allowed. The petitioner at present has a sign at another location on John Fitch Highway that displays the Drive-In information and believe it to be sufficient outside advertising. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: Joe Byrne - In favor with conditions. I also like the idea of having an open meeting to discuss a set limit so we don’t have to discuss the small signs. Joe Marrama – I am also in favor of the petition, and agree with Joe Byrne that the Board should meet and discuss what Leominster has done and make a set of rules that under 32 sq. ft. would not have to come before the Board. Conditions: 1. Size will be 50 in. x 90 in. 2. Unlimited colors 3. 2 signs back to back 4. 3 second change – no video 5. One year review 6/9/15 6. Advertising for on-site business only 7. Public Service Announcements and Amber Alerts 8. Sign to meet D.O.T standards. Joseph Byrne – Motion under ZBA 2014-15 to GRANT a Variance as requested with conditions as stated at 511 John Fitch Highway. Joseph Marrama – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 GRANTED 7:15PM ZBA-2014-16 Matthew Billet & Patria Brown 0 Allen Place & 0 Cleghorn Street Variance under §181.96 to construct a Single family dwelling having 61.14’ of frontage, 5583 sf of area and leaving 23’ to the front property line and 6.2’ on the sides located in the Residential C District at 51/26/0 and 51/23/0 Mike McLaughlin - We are a seven member board when all members are in attendance. Tonight we have four members in attendance which constitutes a quorum. You will need what is known as a Super Majority for your case to pass which would be a unanimous vote tonight. I would like to offer you the opportunity to come back when a full board is in attendance or choose to continue tonight. Petitioner chose to continue. - Mrs. Brown – This is a new petition for a single family house, and has less non-conforming situations than we had in the previous petition. Mike McLaughlin – Before we get started if a petitioner has been before us within one year there is a waiting period. We need to do a vote that the petition before us tonight is substantially different that the previous petition. Vote – 4-0 All members in agreement that the new petition is substantially different than the previous petition. Mrs. Brown – We are now offering one single family house that has only one side that does not conform to what is allowed. The setback on the Cleghorn St. side does not conform. We will have 23 ft. not the required 30 ft. but we will have plenty of room for a two car garage in the frontage of the house. Mrs. Brown refers to plans to show the position of the new house. Jim Concannon – The garage will be under. Will it be two stories or three? Mrs. Brown – Could be either. Mr. Concannon – What are you going to do with the back lot? Mrs. Brown – Nothing, it will be just a big beautiful back yard. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Opened to the Board: Jim Concannon – I Am currently in favor of this with the understanding that both lots become one. Which should happen through City Ordinance, I would like to make that a condition if the petition is approved. Joe Byrne – Is the cow path still running through the middle? Mrs. Brown – Yes Joe Byrne – Are you sure we want to do that? She could claim that as an unbuildable lot and have the taxes reduced on it. Jim Concannon – Then what happens to that land? Joe Byrne – Nothing, nothing is happening to it now. Jim Concannon – First of all the property has been held in her name for more than five years and the merger doctrine in the City requires for the sake of zoning that the two lots become one. Mike McLaughlin – This document reflects that. Joe Byrne – That path down the middle of is an easement running right down the center. If the easement was not there they could have built the house back further on the lot and had more room. Jim Concannon – Do we know who has the easement? Joe Byrne – Some lady down the street, she said she is not giving it up. Mrs. Brown – Every one of them need to sign off to extinguish that path. The first one I went to was Mrs. R. and she refused to sign. Mike McLaughlin – It’s a common passway and in the past passway’s were typically used to deliver coal and such to the houses back at the turn of the century. By right they are abandoned and effectively you have the right of use to the center and where she owns two lots she technically has use to the center. I would ask Mrs. Brown to talk to the Building Commissioner. Just so the Board understands, the zoning in this area requires 10,000 sq. ft. and she has 5,000 sq. ft. The minimum lot frontage is 80 ft. Minimum and a front set-back which is 25 sq. ft. a minimum side set-back is 15 ft. so you are asking for a variance for four different specifications not one. Mrs. Brown – It is a buildable lot if it is 5,000 sq.ft Mike McLaughlin – Who deemed that it was a buildable lot? Mrs. Brown – Let’s go with today. Mike McLaughlin – Another question I have is that the plot plan that you are presenting does not match up with your request for what’s written on the meeting agenda. Lois did something change along the way? Lois – Not that I’m aware of. Jim Concannon – Does the rear set- back go to the property line? Mike McLaughlin – That would be a question for the building Commissioner, that’s his determination, so if you do have some questions and you want to pose them to the Commissioner we can just push it out to next month. I’d rather the Board be comfortable with the determination. Mike McLaughlin – Would you like the secretary to ask that question to the Commissioner and put it on for next month? All members – Yes Mrs. Brown – I was understanding that your position was to accommodate Mike McLaughlin – Our position is to look at the case and if we feel that it is in the best interest of the city as a whole to grant you relief to allow you to do something that doesn’t meet today’s regulations. Mrs. Brown – But it is already in accord with the existing neighborhood. Mike McLaughlin – We take that into consideration. Mrs. Brown and Mike McLaughlin sign to continue to the meeting scheduled on July 8, 2014. Joseph Byrne – Motion under ZBA 2014-16 to CONTINUE to July 8, 2014 @ 7:15 P.M. Joseph Marrama – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 CONTINUANCE GRANTED 7:30PM ZBA-2014-17 IC Federal Credit Union-Mike Patenaude 276 Bemis Road Variance under §181.5363 to construct a two (2) sided electronic reader board sign in the Central Business District 111/1/Lot B which are prohibited in all zoning districts per §181.5363 Mike McLaughlin - We are a seven member board when all members are in attendance. Tonight we have four members in attendance which constitutes a quorum. You will need what is known as a Super Majority for your case to pass which would be a unanimous vote tonight. I would like to offer you the opportunity to come back when a full board is in attendance or choose to continue tonight. Petitioner chose to continue. – Mr. Patenaude – We applied for a permit to install a double-faced electronic message center that would be located closest to the railroad tracks and we were denied. Basically under §181.5363 states no sign shall flash, rotate or make noise etc. What we are proposing is to install an electronic message center that has the capabilities to do all of these things. However, it is not the intention of the IC Credit Union to have video, scrolling and many of the other capabilities this message board has. I have a criteria that I have reviewed initially with IC that was a requirement of a past message center that we installed in the City which includes all the usual conditions. Jim Concannon – What is the intended location of the message board? Mr. Patenaude – There is an existing location which is actually filed with the City. The existing sign is a 4 x 12 sign on a base that is already installed it’s installed on a brick base Jim Concannon – That would be after the traffic lights and before the bridge. Mr. Patenaude – We plan to utilize the existing base, it won’t be any closer to the road. The existing sign is 48 sq. ft. the new sign, the message board part of it will be 28 sq. ft. The sign cabinet itself is huge and if I put a real small sign to meet the criteria on that base it will look funny. We are going to match the molding on the building to dress it up a bit. The petitioner has presented plans (Exhibit A) showing what the new message board will look like, and where it is located. Jim Concannon – What are the dimensions of the new sign? Mr. Patenaude - The new sign will be a 52 sq. ft. structure. Jim Concannon - What are the dimensions of the existing sign? Mr. Patenaude – The square footage on that is 48 sq. ft. Jim Concannon – I’m concerned about traffic and visibility, it’s on a curve. The set-back is quite a bit from the road. Jim Concannon – What is the set- back? Mr. Patenaude – I don’t know. We are using the existing base which was permitted. I would say the set-back is approximately 15 ft. Joe Byrne – Vinny and I went down and took a look at it today there is no obstruction concerns as far as we could see, I have no concerns. Joe Marrama _ Itn is a busy area but I believe the sign is set back enough and don’t see any problem. Jim Concannon – The current sign that is there, is it both sided? Answer – Yes it is. The cabinet work is it painted wood or sided. Mr. Patenaude – It is actually aluminum. What we are going to do is paint it with automobile paint that has a 20 year warranty. Jim Concannon – I think that this is a great application of this sign. Vincent Pusateri II – Joe and I took a look at the area today and I have no problem with it. Mike McLaughlin – It is two-sided, I like your conditions that we have already put on a lot of other signs. Conditions: 1. Size and location of sign per plan submitted 2. No flashing, blinking, animation, or video 3. Alpha/Numeric/Symbolic Picture display only 4. Public Service Announcements to be included in the text, such as, time, temp, and Amber Alerts 5. Signs to be maintained and in good condition and repair 6. Advertising for IC Credit Union affiliated or related businesses only 7. Sign to meet D.O.T standards. – Not less than 3 second display change 8. One year review 6/9/15 Jim Concannon – When do you think you would move forward with this? Mr. Patenaude – It would probably take six to eight weeks to construct and install. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: Joe Byrne – I’m all set with this, it meets the criteria. Joe Marrama – I’m in agreement Mr. Byrne and have no concerns. Jim Concannon – I’m very pleased with the application and I like the tie-in to the building. Mike McLaughlin – I am in favor as well. Joseph Byrne – Motion under ZBA 2014-17 to GRANT a Variance as requested with conditions as stated at 276 Bemis Road. Joseph Marrama – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 GRANTED 7:45 PM ZBA-2014-18 Grecco Alonso 134 Crawford Street Co-Chair Vincent Pusateri II is now in attendance. Special permit under §181.23 to operate a construction yard for Tango Construction Inc. in the Industrial District at 114R/1/0 Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Mr. Alonso – My Dad had the Company for 20 years, now I have taken over. The Building Inspector came in and informed me I needed to do get a Special Permit, I had no idea. Mike McLaughlin – How long has the company been at this location? Mr. Alonso - I bought the building two years ago and moved there in the middle of last year. Approximately a month ago the Building Commissioner stopped in and told me I needed a Special Permit. I applied and was denied and that I would have to apply for the Special Permit through the ZBA. Nothing has changed since my Father owned the business. Jim Concannon – What kind of construction are you involved with? Mr. Alonso – Mostly manholes and catch basins, the same business and in the same location that my Farther had the business. Jim Concannon – Has that been divided into multiple businesses? Mr. Alonso – I am leasing out 1400 ft. to a repo company. The fenced in areas are theirs. Everything else is for my business use. What about across the street, is that you? Mr. Alonso – No, that’s not mine. Joe Byrne – Are they related to you? Mr. Alonso – Yes, my cousin Sebastian. Joe Byrne – Both the Repo Business and Sebastian’s business should be coming before the Board also. Mr. Alonso – I have discussed that with the Owner, he is supposed to be taking care of it. Joe Byrne – Mr. Pusateri and I were over there today. We walked around back and I will say that you keep a very clean shop. What is the silo for? Mr. Alonso – We had a concrete truck there, but the state never gave approval and we sold the trucks and we are trying to sell the silo also. Mt. Pusateri – When we were there today we noticed you had to be buzzed in and out of the building, also the heavily tinted glass. Is there any other kind of business located there? Mr. Alonso – No, my Father thought the extra security was necessary because we had an attempted break-in and had it installed. Joe Marrama – I’m good with everything, he keeps a nice clean place. Jim Concannon – The contractor across the street has nothing to do with you? Mr. Alonso- The businesses are totally separate but, we are related. Mr. Alonso – Wherever the money is. Highways, streets not generally around here. Places as far as Dover New Hampshire. Sometimes New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut also. I have approximately 30 union employees. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: Joe Byrne – I’m Good Mike McLaughlin – One year review, no unregistered or inoperable vehicles on property, scrap metal pile allowed for castings only on property. Jim Concannon – I’m good, I was wondering what was going on with the repo business and across the street. Now that I know that they are independent of Mr. Alonso’s business I’m fine with that. The only question I would have is whether or not the repo business and Mr. Alonso’s should be operating from the same address. I believe it’s a mixed use. Mike McLaughlin – We would add a condition that any on site businesses would require an application for a permit within 30 days. Mr. Pusateri submitted finding as follows- The construction yard across the street has no connection with 134 Crawford Street, per the applicant (Mr. Alonso). Conditions: 1. One year review 6/9/15 2. No unregistered or inoperable vehicles on property 3. An application for Zoning relief shall be submitted within 30 days by all businesses located at 134 Crawford Street Mike McLaughlin – Motion under ZBA 2014-18 to GRANT a Special permit with the conditions as stated. Joseph Byrne– Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANTED 8:00 PM ZBA-2014-12 Ruzbin Martinez and Shelby Sicard 90 Highview Street Variance under §181.414 to construct an addition that is closer to the front lot line than allowed. The proposed addition will leave less than the required 30 ft. to the front property line in the Residential A-2 District at 188/6/0 Mike McLaughlin – This is a continuation of an application for a variance to construct a proposed garage encroaching on the front yard set-back. We now have the plot plan (Exhibit A) and can proceed. During the previous hearing I believe we had an issue with off street and on street parking. Is the going to resolve the issue of off street parking? Mr.Pusateri – Do you need any additional room for off street parking after the garage is built? Mr. Martinez - No Mr. Pusateri - Has your engineer said whether or not you can put a driveway where it shows an easement? Ms. Sicard - Yes, the engineer has told us that the driveway would have to be before the easement. Mike McLaughlin – Is the garage going to open to the rear or to the side? Mr. Martinez – It will open to the side. Joe Byrne – I was up there this afternoon and it looks fine there is enough room to get the off-street parking that aggregate the neighbors taken care of. You are taking the shed down right? Mr. Martinez – Yes, that whole cemented area will be gone. Mike McLaughlin – Is there an 8 ft. basement in that house? Mr. Martinez – No, I believe it may be 6 ft. Joe Marrama - I viewed it, I think it is fine. Mike McLaughlin - There is one piece of information we need to see on this. What is the set-back for this new addition? Mr. Martinez - Approximately 16 ft. Board measured according to engineers scale on plans and determined it may be 11-12 ft. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Hearing Closed: Deliberations: Joe Byrne – I’m ok with it I think it will be fine any really look good. Jim Concannon – Did we talk about when the construction will begin and end? Mike McLaughlin – By right you have one year to start it. If you want to put a condition in that it must be completed within one year after construction is started and all debris removed we can do that. I am in favor of the petition, it meets the criteria for a variance. Jim Concannon - I also am in favor of it and appreciate the increase on the front set-back to 12 ft. If it came to 11 ft. I wouldn’t be opposed. I think that their 25ft. dimension off the back of the house should describe what that front easement should be. Mike McLaughlin – The condition would be that the set-back would be no greater than 25 ft. from the line created by the rear of the building which is approximately 12 ft. Mr. Pusateri – So, we want construction when its starts to be completed within one year, all debris removed, the construction of the house and the associated driveway will be done in such a manner to alleviate the need for on street parking. I want to have a review specifically in connection with the on street parking issue, but certainly with all conditions. Mr. Pusateri – Do we want the construction of the garage to match the House? The architecture of the house is very dated and probably impossible to match. Mr. Martinez – It’s all going to be replaced and the addition and the main structure will match. Also, a one year review. The first condition will be not less than 11 ft. Conditions: 1. Construction be completed within 1 year and all debris removed at that time 2. Set-back to be no greater than approximately 11 ft. 3. One year review 6/9/15 Mike McLaughlin – Motion under ZBA 2014-12 to GRANT a Variance under §181.414 to construct an addition that is closer to the front lot line than allowed with the conditions as stated. Jim Concannon– Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANTED 8:15 PM ZBA-2014-10 Mr. Harold Dennen 102 Parson Circle Use Variance under §181.313 Subsection A.2 to erect a 24’ X 24’ single story addition (apartment) to the left side of the existing house and a variance under §181.414 which will leave less than the required 30’setback from the front property line in the Residential A-2 District at 248/11/0 Mr. Pusateri – We have determined that this is a Use Variance in a residential area, we have already identified that we cannot issue a variance, the request really should have been for an accessory apartment and would have met the criteria. Mr. Dennen – I would like to amend the petition to an application for a special permit. Mr. Pusateri – I would like to ask for a vote to allow the applicant to amend the petition to a petition to a request for a special permit. VOTE: 5-0 GRANTED Joe Byrne – I saw the property today and it is perfect for the intended use. Mr. Marrama – I viewed the property, I’m fine with it. Mike McLaughlin – If this is changing then we have to meet the criteria for the accessory apartment. Initially, you had said that your intention was to have separate entrances, exits, electrical, water and make them totally independent of one another. Is that still your intent? Mr. Dennen – No, all that has changed. Mike McLaughlin – Do you a new plan? Mr. Dennen – No, just the original plan. Mike McLaughlin – How many entrances are you planning? Mr. Dennen – Two, that is my initial intent. A front entrance, a rear entrance, and an interior entrance to my main house. Jim Concannon – The front entrance goes into which side of the property? As you come through the front door, which property are you walking into? Mr. Dennen – There will still be two front and rear entrances. Mike McLaughlin - Have your read the information regarding accessory apartments? Mr. Dennen – No I haven’t. Mike McLaughlin – Did you speak to the Building Commissioner? Mr. Dennen – I did. Mike McLaughlin - I just want to read some of it so you will understand the criteria for an accessory apartment. The purpose of the accessory apartment section in the by-laws was to enable owners’ of a single family dwelling larger than required for their present needs, particularly the elderly to share the burden of home ownership. The accessory apartment shall not exceed 800 sq. ft. in floor space. Also, the space that you add to the existing home is not more than fifteen percent of the gross living floor space that already exists. We also need an affidavit from you that states the person to occupy the apartment is a family member. It is a permit for five years, it is not a variance that carries with the land, it is a Special Permit. The exterior of the accessory apartment is to be located so that it doesn’t significantly alter the appearance of a single family structure. Which means that there really should not be two front doors. Mr. Dennen – My thoughts were for fire safety. Mike McLaughlin – The intent is to help families out, but the intent is not to make a single family home to look like a two family home. We need to assure that in the future it cannot be sold as a two family home. The criteria prevents this from happening. Jim Concannon – I don’t have any concerns with this. I guess the question would be about the services to the building. Would there be separate services as originally stated, or would there just be one set of services to the house to cover both sections? Mr. Dennen – Just one service. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Hearing Closed: Deliberations: Mr. Pusateri – I would like to state that this rule is archaic at best especially the insulting language about the purpose the accessory apartments for elderly people I think we should write to the Council and let them know that 800 sq. ft. in an apartment is barely habitable and that the citizens of Fitchburg should not be expected to live in such a small areas in their homes. The fifteen percent increase in the structure might be appropriate in certain cases and to make this an absolute rule would deprive us of any discretion that we would need to exercise on a case by case basis and that we should do away with that rule. I spoke with the petitioner today about the one year review and encouraged him to petition the City Council, his house is surrounded by two family homes. We do have our conditional language of not to sell the property as a two family home and that will be recorded in the Registry of Deeds unless you get that relief from the City Council. I am not opposed to service being unified or separate because of the potential possibility of having this becoming a two family home. Mike McLaughlin – Will the addition be one-story or two-stories? Mr. Dennen – I think it will be two. I’d like to maintain the same lines of the house. Mike McLaughlin – So it would about 1100 sq. ft. of new addition to the house. Do you have an idea what the square footage of the existing house is? Mr. Dennen - I believe that it is 24 x 36. Mike McLaughlin – So you are almost doubling it. I don’t have further questions of the applicant. I am just adhering to what we are supposed to be asking for according to the by-laws. Do you have a design plan? Mr. Dennen – Not at this time. If my petition is approved my plan was to submit a plan to the Building Commissioner. I did submit a floor plan with my paperwork. Mike McLaughlin – We only have a plot plan that was submitted. At this time the petitioner’s signed the Affidavit provided by the Board. Mr. Pusateri – Are there any further comments or questions? Any other conditions you would like to do.? We have the standard conditions for an accessory apartment, I want to strike condition #6. The other thought that I have on this is that I am giving a dimensional variance 800 sq. ft. or fifteen present. Which I can do in a residential area. Jim Concannon – I don’t have any problem where we are going. I do agree the 800 sq. ft. needs to be addressed by Council. Conditions for an accessory apartment are as follows: 1. Property not to be sold or conveyed as a 2-family 2. Special Permit expires in 5 years and must be renewed prior to expiration 3. Special Permit will terminate upon the transfer of the property 4. Dwelling is to be owner occupied 5. Accessory Apartment is to be occupied by a relative of the owner 6. Review in 60 days – ZBA meeting to be scheduled for 8/12/14 7. There will be a floor plan, an elevation plan and a parking plan submitted at the ZBA meeting held scheduled for 8/12/14 8. Construction to be completed within a year, with all debris removed Mike McLaughlin – We would like a 2 month review to submit the floor plan, parking plan, and elevation to show what the front of the house would look like. Joe Byrne – I’m good. Mike McLaughlin – I just want to make sure we get it all. The petition has to be amended, they are no longer requesting a use variance, but instead they are requesting a special permit for an accessory apartment under §181.34. Joe Byrne - Motion under ZBA 2014-10 to remove the request for the Use Variance and amend it to a request a under §181.34 for an accessory apartment. Jim Concannon – Motion seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANTED Mr. Pusateri – We will now address the request for a deminsional variance for both front and side set- backs. Mike McLaughlin – Just plan as submitted. Mr. Pusateri – You have the dimensions articulated in the plan? Mike McLaughlin – Yes, it’s on the plan. Mr. Pusateri – Would you like to speak to the criteria? Mike McLaughlin – For the variance? It’s an interesting one. Mr. Pusateri – So what I would say is that the structure situated on the property would not permit for an addition to the right hand side of the property because of the existence of the driveway, and would also require a variance on that side. The property on the rear would interfere with an existing screen porch and would create a hardship and cause damage to the current structure. Joe Byrne – The variance is needed because the 24 ft. that they are looking for the variance on the side of the house is a paper road that is a huge gully. Nothing is ever going to be built on it nor will it be useable land. I don’t believe it will impact anyone in the area. Mr. Pusateri – Any conditions on the variance? Any conditions on the time frame for construction? Jim Concannon – Construction to be completed within a year, with all debris removed. Board – Yes Do we want construction to precede the review? Board – We have given dimensional variances so if a foundation goes into the ground based on those dimensional variances we don’t have a problem with it. I want to look at the elevation, parking and floor plan. The Dennen’s have been forewarned that there might be changes to that at the review. Mr. Pusateri to Mr. Dennen – Are you ok with that? Mr. Dennen – Yes, we probably won’t begin until after the review anyway. 1. Construction to be completed within a year, with all debris removed 2. Elevation, parking and floor plan to be submitted at the ZBA meeting scheduled for 8/12/14 Joe Byrne - Motion under ZBA 2014-10 to approve the application for the dimensional variance with conditions as stated Jim Concannon – Motion seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANTED 8:30 PM ZBA-2013-06 Silvia Silvera 107 Daniels Street Review of a Special Permit to operate a Large Family Day Care from this 3-family residence located in the Neighborhood Business District at 64/26/0 – 107 Daniels Street Mr. Pusateri – Co Chair – Refers to Response Sheet from the Fire Department which references 780CMR308.5.2 for requirements. (Unable to connect this reference to this situation) Mr. Pusateri to Ms. Silvers – Please tell us about the use of the property. 90% of the children come in after school in the buses. Mr. Pusateri – Is there any off-street parking at the facility? Mrs. Brown, who is also in attendance stated that she allows the use of her parking area next door for Ms. Silveria when needed. Mr. Pusateri – Could you please describe the traffic flow for pick-up and drop-off? Ms. Silvera - Most of the children arrive by school bus. The few who do not come by bus just stop in front of the building. Joe Byrne - The property is well maintained and looks good. Our only concern was for when parents pick-up the children because the property is on a curve. Joe Marrama – I have no concerns as long as the children are dropped-off in front of the house and not across the street. I also noticed that in the back of the house you have a fenced in area for the kids to play. Mike McLaughlin - I have reviewed the property it is very nice and very clean. Ms. Silvera has done a good job. Jim Concannon – How many children? Ms. Silvera – About twelve children at different times, never more than ten at any one time. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: Mr/ Pusateri – From the front it looks like a nice clean happy place and is being operated in good shape. Mike McLaughlin – Just one question, six parking places. Ms. Silvera – Yes Mike McLaughlin – In your original license you are licensed for ten. Ms. Silvera – Yes Mike McLaughlin – Just as a reminder on your review you were supposed to have a parking plan. I think it’s worked fine without one at this point. Joe Byrne – From what I can see the parking is acceptable. Jim Concannon – I’m good. It’s been operating for a year without any problems. Mike McLaughlin – I am in favor of it with the findings and the original conditions, striking the parking plan. We will keep condition one except for it be amended that at which time a parking plan will be submitted will be struck. Conditions: 1. One year review 6/ /15 2. Place will not be operated as a nuisance 3. Will be operated in compliance with all the Laws of Massachusetts regarding family daycare 4. Special Permit to terminate or expire on the sale or transfer of the property or changes ownership of the operations from Ms. Silvera Joe Byrne - Motion under ZBA 2013-06 to approve the review with the above mentioned changes and conditions. Jim Concannon – Motion seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANTED 8:45 PM ZBA-2013-08 Maria Mendoza 494 Rollstone Street Review of a Special Permit to continue running a Large Family Day Care from her residence located in the Residential A-2 District at 92/40/0 – 494 Rollstone Street The Board has been notified that Ms. Mendoza has asked for a continuance, she is out of the country as was unable to return in time for tonight’s meeting. She would like to enter into a mutual agreement for an extension and be put on the July 8, 2014 meeting for 7:30 P.M. Michael Mc Laughlin - Has Ms. Mendoza agreed to the extension? Yes Mutual Agreement for Extension of Time was signed by the petitioner and Lauren McNamara-Chair at this time. Michael McLaughlin – Motion on ZBA 2013-08 to GRANT a continuance. Joseph Marrama – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANTED Continuance 4. MISCELLANEOUS The Board discussed concerns about the Response Sheet received from Lt. Tata. The Code which Lt. Tata referred to does not apply to Zoning but instead refers to Code enforcement. The Board has also determined that any department sighting any code should attach a copy of said code to their Response Sheet. In the future the Response Sheet will be amended to request that this be done. The Board also discussed contacting City Council in reference to the criteria for accessory apartments. 5. ADJOURNMENT Michael McLaughlin – Motion to Adjourn James Concannon – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Adjournment