Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder ZONING Drive Fitchburg, Massachusetts MINUTES August 12, 2014 ________________________________________________________________________________ ATTENDANCE: Lauren McNamara Chair, Vincent Pusateri II Co-Chair, Michael McLaughlin, Joseph Byrne _________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order LM Pledge of Allegiance: All 2. Communications: Attendance: LM, VP, MM, JB 3. Hearings 7:00PM ZBA-2014-10 Harold Dennen 102 Parson Circle Review of floor and elevation plans for 102 Parson Circle for an accessory apartment which was granted a Special Permit under §181.34 in the Residential A-2 District at 248/11/0 at the 6/10/14 ZBA meeting. Lauren McNamara - Chair- We are a six 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 wishes to continue. LM – Mr. Dennen, as you know the Board granted your request for a Special Permit for an accessory apartment at the June 10, 2014 meeting with conditions. You are here tonight to present to the Board the floor, elevation and parking plans (per condition #7 of the approved Special Permit). Mr. Dennen presents Exhibit A- Floor Plan, Exhibit B – Elevation Plan, Exhibits C thru F – Parking Plan. LM – I believe you were looking for a two family, did it end up as an accessory apartment? Mr. Dennen – Yes, it was amended and approved. LM – What was the square footage that was allowed? Mr. Dennen – 24x24 was the petition. MM – A single story apartment 24 x 24. VP – Last month we amended the petition and we had a conversation whether or not an accessory apartment is appropriate in this particular application, we talked about the dimensional requirement of accessory apartments, we talked about the purpose of the accessory apartment, then we voted to approve the accessory apartment. I thought it was pursuant to some plan but I may be mistaken on that. We wanted to see the elevations and what the building was going to look like when it was completed. MM – Has Mr. Dennen signed an Affidavit as to who will be living in the accessory apartment? Answer – Yes, we have it in the file. LM to Board – What were we looking for in the elevation plan? VP – I think Jim wanted to make sure that we knew what we were buying when we were approving this. He wanted to see the elevations. I am going to suggest that the elevation plans make it look more like a two family more than I envisioned that it was going to look like. I thought we were going to have a door on the side and in the back. Mr. Dennen – Yes, there is going to be a door on the side and in the back. MM – There looks like there will also be a door in the front for the accessory apartment. Mr. Dennen – That is correct. LM – Can you show us on the floor plan (Exhibit A) what they make the square footage to be? The Board and Mr. Dennen discuss the floor plan. MM – I think that the front door for the accessory apartment gives the appearance of a duplex or two family house. I thought there was going to be a side and rear entrance. Is there a rear entrance? Mr. Dennen – I am planning on a rear entrance. It is a walk-out basement in the back. MM - I believe that the code is two methods of egress. LM- I believe one means of egress through the accessory apartment and one through the existing home is acceptable. VP – I disagree with that. MM – Asks the Board Does this look like a two family? Answer – Yes - MM – The by-law states that you cannot change the appearance of a single family home. VP - Mike, is it your opinion that this would change the appearance? MM – The question before the Board now is whether it makes the existing home look like a one or two family. VP – The question is does he need a second means of egress within the accessory apartment. I believe he does need it and that he has it by means of the side door and the basement door. Mr. Dennen and the Board further discuss the floor plan of the both the existing home and the accessory apartment concerning the wall connecting the addition and how it could be returned to a single family home. LM – So you don’t have any idea of the total square footage of this plan is? Mr. Dennen – 24 x 24 I am not sure how to figure the square footage. MM – I believe that would be 576 sq. ft. VP – Is that minimum habitability? MM – No, according to State code 80 sq. ft. per person with the first person being 600 sq. ft. MM – My belief is that the front door does not provide the visual single family home. The petitioner not only agreeable but is proposing a doorway off the deck located on the left side of the building. LM – Do we want to see final blue prints so that we can enter them in? We can just approve it and mark it up. VP – I would rather mark it up than have Mr. Dennen incur additional costs. LM – Let’s do two things, change the door and have him write in what the square footage is, sign off that he agrees to it. If the Board is fine with the elevations, we can move along. We can give him options of what he can do and drop the plans with changes for our review and as long as he fits the criteria I will sign off. VP – Would like to make a motion that we approved the application for the accessory apartment with all of our standard conditions for an accessory apartment. with construction be done pursuant to these plans, with the correction that the front door will be removed, the front windows would be redesigned per home owners discretion, and the would accommodate a means of egress. The second egress would be through the walk out basement. JB – Second LM – For the first floor egress you will need stairs on your deck. I was wondering what the square footage of the apartment is in reference to the interior square footage of the main house. MM – We already had that discussion during the last meeting. LM – He could go up to 800 ft. We had that discussion about percentages and how that by-law is out of whack. Mr. Dennen – What if I wanted to put a full dormer on the back to match the dormer on the existing home? Could I do that? The 24 ft. addition would bring it along the same lines. LM – That is changing the whole plan. MM- The accessory apartment by-law is typically designed for people who have homes that are larger to than their present needs, and to allow to share the burden of the larger home with a family member. It’s intent isn’t really to take a house and expand it enough to really add another unit, so when we do these we stretch a little bit. According to the by-law you are only supposed to increase your living space by 15%. If you added a second floor it would be greater. LM – We should have Mr. Dennen, in his writing put the square footage on the plan and he will not have to come back. Board agrees. Mr. Dennen will not have to bring updated plans and the Chair will not have to sign off. Add to the conditions that the accessory apartment will not exceed 600 sq. ft. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM- In favor VP – In favor JB – In favor LM – In favor VP – Motion under ZBA 2014-10 Vote 4-0 Granted the application with the standard conditions for an accessory apartment which were listed in the previous decision on June 10, 2014 except those we have articulated and listed below. MM – Motion Seconded Exception of Conditions: 1. There will be no front door on the accessory apartment 2. The side door / deck shall be the first floor means of egress. With stairs per owner if necessary. Stairs shall not be off the front of the deck. 3. Front window, per owner’s discretion 4. Second means of egress will be out of the rear of the building 5. Accessory apartment will not exceed 600 sq. ft. 7:15PM ZBA-2010-05 Speedee Oil Change 370 John Fitch Highway Review of the Variance under §181.53 for the Electronic Sign located in the Central Business District at 60/3/A Lauren McNamara - Chair- We are a six 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 wishes to continue. Mr. Gadoua is here as representative for Speedee Oil Change. LM- Please tell us how everything is going. Mr. Gadoua – All is going well. We were here a year ago for review, and the Board had some concerns that the messages were changing too fast and that the display was too bright. We have slowed the timing of the messages and dimmed the lights on the display in order to address these concerns. Mr. Gadoua – This is the third time I have come in, is this something that will be required every year? LM – Not necessarily, we have yearly reviews, and usually at some point the Board decides that no further review is required. If there is a complaint after this, we will then contact the petitioner and call them in for another review. MM- Place is looking great, running great, we had a few problems all our concerns we addressed and we appreciate it. JB – Everything looks fine to me. LM – Reads the original conditions for variance, would like to strike condition # 6 and replace with Not to be operated as a nuisance. Mr. Gadoua – I am in agreement. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – I am in favor of the changes. VP – In favor of changes. JB – LM – Also in agreement. Amended Conditions:  1. No flashing, blinking, animation or video on sign 2. Alpha, numeric, symbolic and picture display only 3. Public service announcements to be included in the text, such as, time, temp, and amber alerts 4. Signs to be maintained and in good condition and repair 5. Sign to meet D.O.T. standards including but not limited to not less than 3 seconds display 6. Not to be operated as a nuisance. MM – Motion under ZBA 2010-05 Vote 4-0 Approve with the amended conditions. VP – Motion Seconded 7:30PM ZBA-2014-20 Sebastian Cazard Crawford St. Lot 0 Special permit under §181.313 D5 to store equipment and materials used to operate his business in the Industrial District at 114R/9/0 Lauren McNamara - Chair- We are a six 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 wishes to continue. LM – The Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions for the use and the plan has been revised on 4/28/14. Plan will also need site plan approval from the Planning Board, which has not been applied for at this time. VP – Maybe we should talk about whether there should be a site plan review first. Does anybody have a preference on that, because we are going to think through details and conditions, then the Planning Board is going to do a site plan review? Mr. Cazard – The problem is that I am trying to get electricity there, I have people stealing from me all the time. I’m trying to put some type of security up, I need electricity to do that. I need approval from this Board to be able to have the electricity brought in. MM- How long have you been there? SC – About five years. I was unaware that I had to apply with the City, as soon as I found out I came and did it. I also had to apply for the office. VP – I accept that because it’s an industrial use and you probably figured that you were just going to store some equipment and materials. I try to keep it clean, it’s tough without the electricity. LM – What kinds of things will you be storing on the property? SC – Trucks, bricks, cement blocks mostly. LM – In an organized manner? SC – Yes LM - Is there anything you could do to enhance the curb appeal? SC – I had a Landscape Company go in and clean it up, so it’s nice and clean right now. I have no electricity to be able to power wash the fencing that was vandalized. I try to keep it neat. VP – Apparently you have to go to three different Boards on this piece of property. The Conservation Commission, which you have already done. Also, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. My inclination would be not to put any conditions until after we see what the Planning Board does. Approve the petition, and bring him back in six months for a review and add conditions. This way he can get the electricity. You will go to the Planning Board, and return for review in six months for us to give it a final review. SC – Does that mean that I can get the electricity connected? LM - We will give you approval, after Planning does the site plan review we will see what conditions they have placed on the petition. Then upon the six month review this Board will place conditions on our approval. VP – Does UNITIL send you a letter that you letter? SC – No, Mr. Lanciani has to OK it for them to put the cable in, I already put up the post. VP – Alright. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: VP – I have been to the property and am persuaded by the petitioner indicating that he wants to power-wash the graffiti off the fence, I believe that the fence is a big improvement to that Street, especially if we can keep the graffiti off it. Looking at the property, not going on to the property, it seems that the Contractor yard is in good order. JB – I went to the property with VP and agree that the yard seems to be in good repair and felt sorry for the petitioner about the graffiti on the fence. I am hopeful that when the electricity is turned on and it is power-washed the graffiti will be removed. LM – I would like to see a sunset clause. MM - The letter from the Commissioner states that the land is currently vacant, it is not vacant. Your intent is to store construction vehicles, really it’s a contractor’s yard that you are asking for. LM – What will be the number of trucks on the property? SC – Right now I have three. LM – What type of vehicles are they? SC - 2 Bobcats, a couple of trailers, mini excavator. It’s hard to see in there. SC – I try to make it hard to see, because I have had problems with theft. Without the electricity for security lighting and the fence with the slats it’s pretty dark. LM – From a public standpoint we like the fact that it is enclosed. From a private standpoint when you are losing things it’s not so good. MM – I would like to see the graffiti taken care of, can you give us a timeline on that? SC – As soon as I have electricity, I will take care of it within two weeks. The property is kept up pretty good, it is close by the river so I have some concerns about oil. SC – I don’t do any kind of oil changes. MM – How far from the river are the excavators parked. SC – About 75 feet. MM – OK SC – I have the hay bales, the silk fence. MM – So, one of the conditions of our conditions is that whatever conditions are imposed by the Planning Board become the conditions of the Special Permit. LM – We had said that what VP had proposed was to approve the Special Permit with a six month review, and at the review he will have gone to site plan review, the electricity will be on, he will come back here and possibly add conditions. MM – No conditions now? Conditions: 1. Conditions of Planning Board will be the conditions of this Board. 2. Six month review February 10, 2015 3. Sunset Clause (Sebastian Cazard – Northeast Roads Inc.) MM – Motion under ZBA 2014-20 Vote 4-0 Approve with conditions as stated. VP – Motion Seconded 4. MISCELLANEOUS LM – Last month I stopped into the Building Dept. and spoke with Lois regarding Gleason Landscaping and asked that the Commissioner give me a call. At this time I have not heard from him. We need to bring them in for a review next month. Discussion on the condition of the Zoning files located in the storage area. Discussion about the September meeting. Discussion pertaining to 1-3 Prospect Street. LM- I received a list of occupants from Mr. Walsh. No information concerning cable, electric, etc. I sent this information out to the sub- committee and received no response. JB- We should subpoena information from Verizon, Comcast, and Direct regarding who presently have active accounts for 1-3 Prospect St. Also, we should subpoena Unitil for information that would include the name of account holder’s for 1-3 Prospect for the past five years. We could then make a determination based on the information we receive. LM- Who would be in charge of doing the subpoenas? VP-The Chair would issue them after she has received a written report from the Committee containing all of the information necessary from the Committee. VP – Mr. Walsh used Letterhead when he provided the Board with the occupant information. If he is petitioning as a private citizen he should correspond with the Board in that way. Mr. Walsh was asked what each of these persons would testify to if they were sent a subpoena and he did not give the Board that information. I think we need a response to this. Even it were to be “no”. It needs to have a response and the reason why. Otherwise, he just did this and threw it into the black hole of City Government and no one has responded. The Sub-Committee needs to meet and decide who should be sent a subpoena. JB – But, you are going to send a letter to Mr. Walsh and explain that as Chairperson the Zoning Board of Appeals have received you letter and find that it does not answer what was asked for. In the future please refrain from using the Public Letterhead as you are petitioning as a Private Citizen. JB- As clerk for the sub-committee I will send you a letter stating that the information received from Mr. Walsh was inadequate and that the best information would come from the following. MM- I’m trying to relate this to an earlier case. And whether the decision was based on utilities. This is kind of uncharted waters for us, this particular case. What are we trying to achieve? LM – I think the sub-committee should meet and do what they were originally set up to do. Draft a letter showing all the parameters we’ve discussed, think it through and send it. My opinion is that by the time you get that done and I send the requests to John Barrett it will not be in time to put it on the agenda for next month. I think we need to address this right now through a motion to push this off until we receive the answers to the subpoenas and then we will put it on our agenda. I think we should have everything in writing to show that we have done our due diligence. From our sub-committee, to the Chair, to sending it to the City Solicitor, we need to have a paper trail. He has spent money, time and energy. JB- I will have the findings of the sub-committee and send all of the information to the Chair at the end of one week’s time. LM – I think we are not under any pressure, I think we just need to say that we would like to table this petition until we follow through with the subpoenas. We will have to ask for an extension of time. JB- Can I talk to a petitioner? MM – I don’t see why not as long as it’s not a quorum. JB- I would like to talk to Mr. Walsh and tell him exactly how we felt about what he said to us and say to him what we are doing is Mike, Jim and I are meeting and getting together what we feel and who should be subpoenaed. Tell him that he has to come down and see Lois to have an extension of time signed and take this matter into October or November depending on how long it takes to get the subpoenas. LM- We will put Mr. Walsh on the agenda for the September meeting and at that time we will ask for an extension of time. This will allow the time to do what the sub-committee needs to do. LM – Add Gleason Landscaping to the September meeting. 5. ADJOURMENT Michael McLaughlin – Motion to Adjourn James Concannon – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Adjourned