Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder ZONING Drive Fitchburg, Massachusetts MINUTES October 14, 2014 ________________________________________________________________________________ ATTENDANCE: Lauren McNamara Chair, James Concannon Clerk, Michael McLaughlin, Joseph Byrne, Joseph Maramma _______________________________Vincent Pusateri II – Co-Chair____________ ___________ 1. Call to Order LM Pledge of Allegiance: All 2. Communications: Attendance: LM, MM, JC 3. Hearings JB, JM, 7:00PM ZBA-2014-21 Oak Hill Country Club 840 Oak Hill Road Special Permit under section 181.4214 to install an 8 ft. shadow box cedar fence along the 14th hole, approx. 175 ft. in length, located at 840 Oak Hill Road in the RA-2 District S39/3/0 For the record my name is Jamie Rowe, from Whitman & Bingham Associates and this is Scott Lagana from Oak Hill Country Club. We submitted a plan to you, does everybody have a copy of the plan? I would also like to present some supplemental information as well as possible. The front page is an 81/2 x 11 plan that accompanied the zoning petition and we are proposing an 8 ft. fence that would run along the entire common property, between the Country Club and their abutter and neighbor Mr. Donald McGrath which lives at 373 Theresa Street. We plan to recess the fence about 10 feet along the property line just to show it going back along the property line. If you look at plan #2, Oak Hill Country Club had a survey done of the entire Club back in 1991, both sides of Oak Hill. It’s important for the Zoning Board to know that because when we place the fence, we have to place it with confidence that it is located on our property and that we are not encroaching on anyone else’s property without permission. The property was surveyed in 1991, the common boundary line has stone bounds along it as well, and they have all been recovered and witnessed. The third page is an aerial photo of Oak Hill County Club and Theresa St. as well. There is an outlined parcel as well that is the McGrath residence. This allows you to see where it is in reference to the County Club. JC – I’m not seeing that. JR – Let me show you. JC- And where is the fence running? LM Chair – Between the home and the golf course, right along that black line. JC – For how many feet? JR – Roughly 180 ft. JR – It is our understanding that when we went to talk to the Building Inspector that to put an 8 ft. fence or higher requires a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are looking at trying to do that work this year. LM Chair – What is the intent? JR – The intent is to screen the property at 373 Theresa St. Mr. McGrath is here, he does get quite a bit of leaves on his property and he does have building materials that we would like to screen. LM Chair – So it’s going to be just that property and that’s it? JR – That’s it. LM Chair- And that’s the only purpose, nothing will happen on the other side of the fence? JR – That is correct. It’s a double sided shadow box cedar fence. Any other information you would like to add. We a now going to open the meeting up to the audience. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: Mr. Donald McGrath 373 Theresa St. Mr. Paul Marcoulier 372 Theresa St. Rolande Gamache 357 Theresa Street Rolande Gamache, 357 Theresa Street, abutting the right side of the McGrath property. I just want you to know that I do not want a fence in the back of my house. LM Chair – Are you in opposition to the fence behind Mr. McGraths house? RG - As far as I’m concerned he could have a fence all around his house. Opened to the Board: JC – Why 8 ft.? JR – Our feeling is that in order to properly screen the property it needs to be that high, and Mr. McGrath agrees with that height. We think that 6 ft. will not be high enough, it’s not only when the members and players walk down the 14th hole, when they are standing at other locations on the property they can see over that. It’s never going to entirely screen the property 100% but we think 8 ft. will be good. JC- What is it that you are trying to screen? JR- Mr. McGraths property. He has a lot of building materials in his back yard. He has rocks, piles of soil, he is a mason by trade. I think there are some pictures in the package. JC – It’s not an issue with your members going on his property to retrieve balls? JR – No, not an issue. Mr. McGrath has a lot of leaves blow over to his yard and the fence will also stop this from happening. They will blow against the fence and our guys will pick them up. MM – No questions. JB - We are putting up an 8 ft. fence to screen building supplies in a residential area because it looks too bad for Oak Hill? JR – Correct. JB – Maybe I’m wrong, what building supplies in the back yard? LM – Chair – Did you look at the photos? LM – Chair – I have a couple of questions. If in the event the house is sold and the property looks differently in the future do you interest in taking that fence down? Or do you think that will be a permanent fixture? SC – I’m an employee so I can’t speak on behalf of the members or the Board of Directors, my guess would be that we would leave it up because it is a nice fence and the cost would be approximately $12,000.00 to install, my guess would be that it would stay up. JB – These building supplies that we are trying to hide are they business or personal. They are not used in your business? Mr. McGrath – No, I was going to landscape the yard then I had health issues, it’s been about six years now and I was unable to get to it. JB – I want to understand this. How much is it going to cost Oak Hill Country Club? SP – Approximately $ 12,000 .00. JB – And your members are fine with this? SP – The Board of Directors voted unanimously. JB – I just wanted to make sure, it sounds a little ridiculous, $ 12000.00 to screen in someone else’s property. JC – What is the dimension that you will bring the property back? The plan submitted, the original copy is stamped will reveal back onto the property about 10 ft. It will be located on Oak Hill Country Club property approximately 1 ft. off the property line. It’s going 10 ft. on his property on the side. JC – So, you are just going to wrap it 10 ft. onto his. The solid line is the property line, this is the proposed screen fence. One foot onto Oak Hill. It’s going to come back 10 ft. on land owned by Rousseau and Gogan, and we have their permission to reveal it back so it looks decent. One of the other things that we will be doing if the Board does vote in favor, is submitting calculations to make sure that it will be structurally sound as part of the building permit application. MM – Your set-back is only 1 ft. from the property line. Do you feel that it is going to be enough to be able to maintain both sides of the fence if need be? JR – Yes, we spoke to our neighbor and he is in agreement with this. If he were not in agreement we probably would not have gone forward. We are going to maintain a great relationship and if we do have to maintain it we will ask his permission to go on the other side and do what we have to do. JC - And the abutters on either side where the fence is coming back. JR – Just on one side. JC – Just on the one side? JR – Yes, 10 ft. JC – Where you are coming back onto this property, they are also in agreement? JR – Yes they are. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JC – I am in favor, I think that 8 ft. is pretty tall. All players here seem to be in agreement that it should be done and I believe that Oak Hill will install a quality fence and maintain it. I think it’s going to be a win – win for everybody involved. LM Chair – Does it meet the criteria? MM – Yes, under 181.932, six questions we typically have to ask ourselves, I believe it does meet. The most important criteria, the benefit to the city and the neighborhood outweigh the adverse effects of the proposed use. I’m in favor. JM – I’m in favor. JB – Not in favor, because I don’t feel that it is fair that a group like Oak Hill spend so much of the membership’s money to fence in something because a man has trash in his backyard. It’s not supposed to be an eyesore to the neighborhood in a residential area. LM Chair – That’s a separate issue. JB – That’s my issue. LM Chair – That’s fine, I understand where you’re coming from. LM Chair – I am in favor of the petition as well because it does meet the criteria. MM – Motion on ZBA 2014-21 to grant the special permit as requested. JC - Second the motion Vote – Approved 4-1 7:15PM ZBA-2014-07 Karen Stroparro 150 Benson Street Vincent Pusateri II Co-Chair – Now in attendance Review of a Special permit §181.313.D.6 and variance §181.313.E.2 to conduct a scrap yard business for salvage and recycling of scrap metal in the Industrial District at 183/15/0 LM Chair – Please state your name and address. – Karen Stroparro, 729 West Street, Leominster, MA KS – We were here six months ago, at that time we took the plans for 150 Benson Street and made notations of where everything for the businesses that are on the property were to be located. You had a question on beautifying the property and maintaining the frontage. Prior to that Tim had some paving done along the entry way and we had some shrubs and different things there. My hours of operation were stated to be 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Saturday. Closed Sunday. LM Chair – Does everything seem to be falling within the set conditions? KS – Everything stated that night is what is happening and is accurate and running smoothly. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Opened to the Board: LM Chair – Mr. McLaughlin could you carry us through the conditions and the findings? MM- Recites Conditions as listed 1. Hours of operation – 7:00AM – 5:00PM - Monday thru Saturday 2. 6 Month Review – October 14, 2014 3. All conditions set by the planning Board is site plan review to become a condition 4. All vehicles to enter and exit the property off of Benson Street having the ability to maneuver inside the fenced area to load, unload and turn before exiting. 5. Beautification of the area to be addressed at site plan review and subject to review by ZBA 6. Not to be operated as a nuisance. MM – Is there any communication from the Planning Board with respect to site plan and or any conditions that might have been drafted? LM Chair – We have no correspondence from any group this evening. MM – Were you before the Planning Board for site plan review? KS – No, I don’t think so. LM Chair. – I believe they had been before planning for site plan review before they came to Zoning. And we adopted what they has set for a site plan.MM – Can’t recall that we ever saw a site plan review. KS – When you say a site plan, do you mean a layout? MM – Yes, it shows some beautification and such. KS – We brought it to the last meeting. It had already been through the Planning Board, we brought it to our last meeting for the Zoning Board and at that meeting we marked it up. LM Chair – What had happened that evening I believe you brought with you something that the Planning Board had already signed off on and then we marked up your plan and I initialed the markups. So it had already gone to site plan review and we marked it up and asked you to make copies and distribute them to all of the departments. We did go to the Fitchburg Memorial Junior High School, I believe that was in front of the Planning Board and they approved everything. That was for my permits. MM – Was that meeting also chaired by a female? KS – No MM – Maybe it was the Conservation Commission? KS – No it wasn’t the Conservation Commission. It was the Planning Board. MM – That would have been chaired by Paula Caron. LM Chair – That’s if she were there. LM Chair – Let’s move on from there with other questions and then we can revisit that. MM – The place is looking good, but you have an old wooden sign out there that’s handmade, can we do something with that? Either have one professionally made or remove that one. KS – What happened is that the about a year and a half ago the Police Department stated that we have to take license, registration, photo ID of all the people coming in with scrap metal. We complied with that request, evidentially there are a couple of people in the vicinity of our place that are in the same business and they were not in compliance. They basically stole all of our customers, scrappers off the street don’t want to go through all this. Instead, they will go to the place they can get in and out real quick and not have to put their name and our business started to go down. I inquired, and the police investigated and told them they have to comply or get fined. Since then they do comply, but we have lost a lot of our customers. We put a scrap metal sign on the street and it did bring in a lot of the scrappers. They don’t like a lot of those professional signs. MM – Who don’t? KS – The scrappers. MM – Well I’m not a scrapper, I’m just saying as a Board Member, as part of this permit I would like to put in a condition that the sign be removed and that a professional sign be installed because it’s very detractive. JC - Are we talking about at the top of Benson Street? KS – Yes JC – I’m not familiar with where that sign is, but I did drive along Airport Road and Benson Street and the fence has been tagged. KS – My nice fence has been spray painted. KS – I ordered a new banner from Wass-Arthur to replace the present on which is 14 years old, it should be in anytime. The scrappers basically are attracted to that type of sign, and it really started to bring some business back. But, if I can’t have the sign, I can’t have the sign. MM – There are regulations for signage size, you will need to check with the Building Inspector. You can’t just put a sign out in front of the building without following the guidelines. MM – Definitely, I would be in favor of allowing a sign, I can’t tell you how big, because that may require a permit on its own. I definitely want to have that removed immediately. If you go to the Building Department they’ll be able to say “as a matter of right” this is the size sign that you can have. Other than that, things look good. VP – I don’t have any questions. I’m not sure that I participated in this mark-up. MM – Another question that I would like to ask, is that this granting of the Special Permit and the Variance may be subject to site plan review. I don’t know if that ever occurred. But if it didn’t and it is subject to, then I would like to see that the petitioner go for it. LM Chair – So that we can alter the conditions. MM – Correct. I believe it needed to and you may not have. I’m OK with that, that’s why we do the review. But, if it does need site plan review, it should go before the Planning Board. VP – I agree with Mike, maybe we should make a condition. We can’t rely on department’s communicating with each other, when most of us are volunteers. If you guys can get whatever site plan that you have and file it with us we can take a look at it and have another review at a later date. LM Chair – Then if you want to do something with signage you can pursue that. KS – The sign is not a permanent sign. VP – No, but signage is something that we have been uniformly talking about to petitioners. VP – Everyone is required to checks licenses? KS – Yes, unless they are going under a business name. VP – Unless they have a Corporate or an LLC? KS – Yes JM – I took a walk through this morning and everything was neat and in order. For a scrap yard, it was as neat as I have seen. Everything in its place, going in and out, the motors all stocked on shelves. As far as I could see everything was in compliance. I was very impressed. JB – All the times I’ve been there it has been running perfectly. I have no problems with it. JC – I have a comment, it goes back to an earlier comment about the fence being tagged. My question to you would be, do you have any plans on rectifying that or controlling it? I noticed that fences up and down Airport Road are being tagged. KS – My idea was to leave it as is then they won’t come back. If I spend time and money to clean it all up, which is very costly, they are going to come back and do it again. LM Chair – Do you have any surveillance on that section of the Property? KS – Not on the street, I can’t afford that. MM- I believe we did have a contractor down the street that did that. JC – That’s a big issue, and it’s a blight, I would definitely like to have that addressed. I don’t know if it’s the businesses along Airport Road. LM Chair – I wonder if there is some kind of Grant money. JC _ I mean the road is dark, it’s long. KS – It’s a major bypass road to get from one road to the other, but it’s not lit so late at night people can come in and tag the fencing pretty easily. JC – We’ve had a couple of petitioners come before us, this is a big issue and that area has been a hot spot I would say for the last six months. KS – That’s a beautiful fence we have put up on both properties. JC – I know, you’re trying to do your part and somebody steps up and for what reason we don’t know, let’s find these people. KS – If I spend the money to rectify the problem and they come back and do it again, I can’t promise that I can do that. LM Chair – That was a long stretch that was tagged. MM – The contractor that we talked to believes that he can power wash that off. KS – Wass- Arthur gave me a recipe to try to remove this. You apply it by hand and scrub it then power-wash. It’s a long process and there is a lot of fence. JC – I did notice one business on Airport Road had a tanker truck and was completely covered with graffiti and they had it off in a couple of days. And then unfortunately their big metal structure behind it was tagged. TP – Are you talking about the building neat Steel Fab? JC – Yes TP – A couple of days depending on how many people are out there cleaning it, it could have cost them a couple thousand dollars. LM Chair – Do you have an employee you could put on that? KS – I could do that, then they are going to come and tag it again. I can’t afford to do that. I’m trying to keep the business above ground without Walters’ guidance. I took it over and I am not in the business of cleaning fences. It’s not my only property. My other property is all graffiti, I have another fence on Falulah and expect that to be next. LM Chair – I think we should address this issue another time. KS – I can’t promise that I can clean all the fences. VP – Can we review the issue of graffiti at the next review? LM Chair – It’s an over-all problem on Airport road that needs to be addressed. VP – Honestly, the only solution is to get individual surveillance of all the properties. KS – Well, do you know what it costs for that? LM Chair - Or better lighting on the street. Maybe the City needs to take a bite into that. KS – I thought all the lights were off. LM Chair – Some of them have been turned back on. JM - You still have the option through UNITIL if there are light poles on that street to have them turned on and pay for it. LM Chair – Maybe you can explore those options before your next review. JC – My goal would be that you are doing a good job bringing the property back. Taking that original mill building down and bringing it back I think you’re doing a great job. It’s unfortunate about the graffiti, it’s not just your property it’s all up and down that street. I would be interested in finding out if we can address it. Individually, cooperatively and with the Police. I think some night cameras and recording, maybe we could catch some people in the act. KS- What do you do when you find them? JC – Turn them over to the Police. LM Chair – I think that is a subject for a different day. We need to go through the conditions and we are running behind. VP – I’d like to make sure that if we are going to make a decision to review in on another day I would like to memorialize our thinking on it in the conditions asking them to at least investigate contacting UNITIL to increase the lighting on their frontage. And to investigate the cost and benefits of added security. Also, investigate cost of removal of graffiti. LM Chair – We want to set another review, we’ll change that, hours of operation are accurate, and there are a couple of things that we want to add. Amended Conditions: 1. Six month review April 14, 2015 2. Temporary sign in front of the building shall be removed 3. Graffiti issue to be addressed at the April 14, 2014 review 4. Petitioner to inquire with Building Department for site plan review required for this Special Permit and Variance. If there is already a site plan review a copy is to be placed in the Zoning file. 5. Petitioner to investigate contacting UNITIL to increase the lighting on their frontage. And to investigate the cost and benefits of added security. Also, investigate cost of removal of graffiti. 6. All original conditions are to remain in effect MM – My question isn’t in regards to a site plan. The question is, as a result of this Special Perm it and Variance does it require site plan review by the Board? I don’t know if that has been exercised. It’s not is there a plan on file somewhere that somebody has? The question is as I had stated. VP & MM – And so if there is a plan it will go in the file, if there is no plan, has the petitioner been before Planning as a result of this particular application that was granted by us ? I believe she needs to but I don’t definitively know. KS – We were putting all of the licenses and permits into the right names and entities because they were all jumbled up. We did go before the Planning Board. LM Chair – Get it to the Building Department or you will need to get yourself on their schedule. VP – I would recommend that she call Mike O’Hara at the Planning Department. MM – Not Building, Planning. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – I am in favor of approving the review with the conditions that were stated to be added to the existing conditions. JC – I agree with Mike VP – I am also in agreement JM – Also in agreement JB – I am also in agreement LM Chair – Also I agreement MM - Motion on 2014-07 to approve the review JC – Second the motion Vote – Approved 6-0 7:30PM ZBA-2014-08 Timothy Pomerleau 150 Benson Street Review of a Variance under §181.313.C.11 to conduct a vehicle recycling and salvage business in the Industrial District at 183/15/0 Mr. Pomerleau – Everything is going well, I’m here for my six month review to continue operations. Basically everything has been running ok. LM Chair – You are on the same plan as well. TP – Yes, I will be coming in soon with a whole new plan because the two companies have been separated since then. Ms. Stroparro no longer has any interest in Rydemore. I lease at this point. I’m looking to come to the Board with a whole new plan and I will have a site plan. In a week or two I hope to come with a whole new one. It will be more descriptive, and we’ll see what happens. LM – And will that be more separate? TP – it’s going to be a lot cleaner than the last one I submitted. What is in the works is that I’m currently trying to buy the Real Estate there. Ms. Stroparro will keep her business there for 2 years and then relocate that business. I have to be able to have Rydemore stay there and handle their business otherwise we’re not going to be able to grow anymore where we’re at. It’s a big thing for me to find out if I can increase parking there for vehicle storage. We have thirty vehicle storage is not really enough for what we need to do. I want to come in front of the Board again and ask permission to increase the limit of vehicles. Since the last time I came here I’ve probably increased by five or six employee’s sine and looking to increase by five to ten immediately. But, we can’t grow due to restrictions on the original plans. That is something I’m really concerned about, I hope to get the plans over to the Board shortly. I really don’t want to purchase the real estate and spend that kind of money to find out that I am restricted to 30 vehicles in the yard. That would mean I cannot expand. Right now things are running smooth, but there are some things I need to address with the Board. LM Chair - You do realize that you are going to have to submit a new application. TP - Start a new application for? LM Chair – The business, a new site plan, the whole process. TP – If I purchase to property. LM Chair – Even with the intent of purchasing. TP – So I better get going on that, I’m glad we talked about that. LM Chair – But for now everything stands the same? TP – Yes, everything is the same. I just wanted to address that because I know it will be coming soon. MM – What is the condition on the number of vehicles right now? TP – Thirty vehicles which is not really enough. MM – I don’t believe changing the ownership of the land has anything to do with the permit. TP – Right now we hold the permits on that land, not the Special Permit but we hold the licenses in our name on that land. The name will be Rydemore Truck and that will not change. We separated everything, we had an idea that this could come to that. MM – If you were going to come back, you would be coming back for more parking for salvaged cars and what else? TP- I would come in with a new site plan showing the correct parking layout, the Fire Department could approve it. This new plan would show that the property can absorb more parking and safely do so. Right now I am allowed thirty vehicles and the place could realistically hold another one hundred more if properly laid out. It’s just a matter of rearranging the businesses. LM Chair – What we need to do tonight is to go through the conditions that have been set forth. MM – Recites present conditions Conditions: 1. Hours of operation – 7:00AM – 5:00PM - Monday thru Saturday Closed Sunday 2. 6 Month Review – October 14, 2014 3. Maximum 10 vehicles for sale on display for sale at one time 4. Maximum of 30 vehicles allowed in staging area awaiting to be dismantled 5. Outside storage area of vehicle body parts / bulk items are not to be visible from public view and are to be stored as shown on plan submitted. 6. Not to be operated as a nuisance. MM – My recommendation is that if the applicant has intent of expansion or has a request to change conditions and plans to be before us again to request these changes I would move to continue until next month. One recommendation would be that when you have the plan on what your intent is to just run it by the Building Commissioner to say here is my intent. Do I just need to schedule an appointment with the Zoning Board or are there any new applications I have to make based on my changes? TP – I believe it does have to go through him because one of the changes is to put another structure. MM – That’s probably separate from this. TP- I’ll get I touch with him and I would like to get on the agenda for the next meeting. LM Chair – We could put him on last for the next meeting. VP – What are your plans other than to increase the number of vehicles? TP – My goal is to increase the number of vehicles, maximize the use of the property safely and put up a dismantling structure. The people that are dismantling vehicles would be undercover without having to deal with the weather conditions. LM Chair – If he’s going to put up a new structure, then that would be a new permit. TP – I don’t believe the new structure would come into play this year. I would like to just re-do the parking and stuff for now. LM Chair – The quickest thing that we can do to give you relief right now is, put you on for the last case. If the Building Inspector says that you need to make a new application and not come through us again please let Lois know that you will not be coming to the meeting in November. TP – Basically we are changing the conditions of the zoning. LM Chair – You will still have to attend the meeting, as we still have to review your conditions. LM Chair - Motion to continue to November 25, 2014 to be scheduled as last on the agenda. MM – Second the motion Vote – Approved 6-0 7:45PM ZBA-2014-09 Joseph Brogna-Raul Lopez 0 Dwight Street Review of a Special Permit §181.313. C.11&12 to operate an automobile repair service and towing. In the Central Business District at 111/33/0 Mr. Brogna – A tank was found on the property creating the need for a 21E Site Report. Raul just received the 21E Report in the mail which was required by the Bank and we should be all set to move forward. LM Chair – When do you close? JB- It was supposed to be September 30th. Now that we have the report we can go to the Bank. LM Chair – So, there’s nothing we can really review. Mr. Lopez, would you like to come back in six months for when you actually take ownership and your business is up and running? Mr. Lopez – Yes LM Chair – Are you all in agreement since he doesn’t own the property at this point? MM- This application should be to Raul Lopez and not have Mr. Brognas’ name on it. LM Chair – I believe Mr. Brogna has his name on it because when the application was submitted Mr. Brogna was at that time and still is the owner of the property. We can clerically fix that next month when Mr. Lopez is the actual owner. At next month’s meeting Mr. Lopez will be the owner of the property and the application will be solely in his name. Mr. Lopez – Can I bring Mr. Brogna? LM Chair – If you like. LM Chair – Where should we notify you? Do you receive your mail at 0 Dwight St.? Mr. Lopez – Yes LO - I sent it to that address and it was returned. Mr. Lopez – Send it to my house. LM Chair - Motion to continue this for six months to April 14, 2015. MM – Second the motion Vote – Approved 6-0 8:00PM 2014-11 Sean Morrison 76 Summer Street Review of a Special Permit under§181.313 Subsection C.10B to allow open-air restaurant sales in the Residential C District at 70/30/0 LM Chair – Please state your name for the record and tell us how things are going. Sean Morrison – Things are a little slow I had some health problems. I’ve decided to shut it down for the winter and reopen in the Spring. Business is doing well, not as good as I would like, It takes good help. I would like to change my hours. I open at 10:00 AM, you don’t really get anybody till 11:00AM. Maybe a little later on the other end would be good. LM Chair – What are your hours now? SM – My hours are currently 10:00AM -2:00PM. As I go along I realize now that I should change them. LM Chair – What are you looking for 11-3, 11-4? SM – I think 11-4 would be good. LM Chair – No weekends? SM – I don’t think I’m going to do weekends in the beginning, maybe later on. MM – If you need to change, come see us. LM Chair – Must be owner operated-not leased, you’ve got employees in there, you have the plan, no plastic banners, and it looks classy. SM – Basically it’s for the people in the building. How is the lighting? SM – It’s good, I pay for two parking lot lights. LM Chair – Trash removal? SM – I have a dumpster, I also have a barrel that is chained to the building. I empty it every day. LM Chair – How about the bathroom use? SM – Most of the people that are coming are using the building. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Opened to the Board: VP – No questions JB – I pass it every day it looks beautiful. JC – I was not excited that this was coming through. I think the installation and the final product is exceptional. I’m very happy with it. You took it far and beyond what I thought you would do. MM – We’ll change the hours as requested. Does the Board want a further review? JC – I think we should, if he is closing down for the winter. Let’s give him an opportunity to start back up and come back six months after you are in operation. MM – Is a one year review amicable to the Board? LM Chair – That’s fine, a one year review, If Board members want a review. I don’t think we need one. JC – It allows him to adjust his hours. MM – He’s not sure if he wants weekend hours. SM – I have a bunch of businesses and this one is not doing well. I would like to open Monday thru Sunday if that is possible, just to have it in place if I do decide to do it. LM Chair – Mr. Morrison would like to change his operating schedule to Monday thru Sunday 11:00AM - 4:00PM. JC – With a one year review. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – Amended conditions are as listed below 1. Hours will be 11:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M. Monday thru Sunday 2. One year Review October 13, 2015 3. Must be owner operated not leased. 4. Plan as submitted 5. No plastic or vinyl banners 6. Not to be operated as a nuisance. 7. Will meet all requirements from Building, Board of Health, Planning, Police, Safety and any other City Department as requested. MM Chair - Motion to approve the review with the amended conditions. JC – Second the motion Vote - Approved 6-0 8:15PM ZBA-2014-19 William F. Walsh 1-3 Prospect Street Overrule the decision of the Building Commissioner LM Chair – I received the information I requested at the September meeting, including the tenants lease. I did view the house and received two parking plans, they are not stamped parking plans. They were made for Ms. Saalbach on the Prospect Street side. The sub-committee has not been able to meet, we put that on hold at this point until I viewed the property. I have not been able to discuss it with the sub-committee as I was away. At this meeting I thought what I would do is entertain any additional information and I would report to the sub-committee after tonight’s meeting and close and deliberate at another time. WW – That’s fine LM Chair – Do you have any other information that you would like to add? WW – No, not really. Just the fact that what I am really opposing is the Building Commissioners decision to treat this building as a two-family house. It is really two condos and he doesn’t really have the authority to change the use of the building from two condos as it is registered with the Registry of Deeds to a two-family. Regardless of that, I just feel that a Special Permit is needed because of the non-conformance of the property to expand to more than two units, that’s the issue. The other issues are somewhat ancillary. We were here and the Building Commissioner indicated that there was some right to have residents there under something he called “unconventional family”. I have researched that and I don’t believe there is an “unconventional family”. We’ve talked about an extra kitchen he says there was a permit, other people say there is no permit for that kitchen. I think the issue is that they need a Special Permit to anything additional to that building. LM Chair – Beyond two individual condominiums? WW – Yes, that is the basic issue. If they have to go for a Special Permit as they did in 2003, parking becomes one of the items considered in a Special Permit. LM Chair – So, your thought is that you do not want to see each condominium more than one unit. WW – That’s correct. If they want to they will have to go with a Special Permit and I don’t think that the Building Commissioner ruled for a Variance. A Variance, because it is a non-conforming use under the code. LM Chair – If they asked to expand the use and it would be a permanent set-up, it would be a variance. If they were looking for accessory apartments, it would be a Special Permit. I am just asking for proper protocol to do something to the two units, which are condo units, which the Building Commissioner has determined in writing are not condo units but a two-family house. That’s my issue, it’s not a two-family house. It’s filed with the Registry of Deeds as two Condos. There is a process to go through if one of them wanted to expand by adding an extra apartment, other than the Building Commissioner just to say “it’s alright”. It’s nothing against the owners of the property. It’s against the Building Commissioner’s process. LM Chair – Is there any other information from anyone else? A. Saalbach – Information since the last meeting that was sent to you. Should I say that information? LM Chair – If you feel that you would like to, you may. I’m going to report it to the sub-committee. A. Saalbach – No, I’m happy as long as it’s available to the whole committee. I really don’t have anything to add except just to say that we haven’t applied for to change ourselves from single condo units, because we do not wish to be changed. We recognize that there are two units there and that’s the way we want it. LM Chair – Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to add any information that was not here before or has new information? Gloria Spadaro – My concern on the wall is the irregularity of a regulation as I sat here this evening and listened to all these people who sat before you for their due process. In the immediate neighborhood, in less than a year there have been three instances. Less than a year ago Mike Morella stood before you for his steel garage. Not knowingly he tore down part of the building and was fined three hundred dollars. He had to appear before you and you granted it. A woman on School Street in the recent months was going to hire someone to replace a stoop and she was fined three hundred dollars and she finally appeared and was given a Variance, but she had to go through the process. Most recently, in the last couple of weeks a lovely older Greek man on Arlington Street Mickey Moused a porch he also was cited three hundred dollars because he did not follow a regulation. I feel that work that was done inside of 1-3 Prospect Street was circumvented by a permit. There is no question. I think it creates an inequality for people who have knowingly or otherwise have had to submit to a hard and fast requirement. I think that if it were a licensed contractor that he might be subjected certainly knowing the ropes of the regulations of getting a permit. I think by allowing this the Zoning Board is in a very strategic position on this appeal. In ignoring it, by not doing something diligently about it you only make feasible sub-housing. LM Chair – We are well aware of that. GS – I thank you for your sub-committee, I thank you for your in-depth, it is appreciated. You are a very fair and well thought out Board. . LM Chair – Mr. Pennetti would you like to add anything from last month. I have the lease and I brought my tenant who leases the apartment. If you have any questions for her as to who lives there or what the property is being used for. I can tell you I have no intentions of dividing it into a two family. My intention is to leave it as a condominium for as long as I own it. LC Chair – You are one of four tenant’s? Please state your name for the record. NL - My name is Nichole LeTourneau LM Chair – Anything else to add? Like I said, right now we are going to just take the information. We are not going to close and deliberate, we are going to deliberate at another time after I have reported to the sub-committee. Then we will be in touch with you and you will be able to get a copy of the minutes. WW – Thank you, you have been fair and thorough. LM Chair – Do you have any questions as to where we are going with this? No, I just want to make it crystal clear that the issue is not with the tenants it is with the Building Commissioner and the duplicitous statements that he has made and his ruling that it is a two-family dwelling while it really is two condo units. I believe it falls under the need for a Special Permit. LM Chair – Any Board members have any question of the owners or Mr. Walsh. MM – I just have a couple of questions for clarification. Ms. Saalbach if I could just ask, I think you said that in 2010 you put the kitchenette in and obviously left it in the hands of the person you had hired to obtain the proper permits and they did not. And at the time it was simply to accommodate the tenant at the time. A. Saalbach – The kitchen has several intents. For the immediate term before my husband fully retired we weren’t there as often and we didn’t heat the upstairs when we weren’t there. We couldn’t ask our housemate to live upstairs in an unheated bedroom and then come downstairs to the kitchen. Obviously her bedroom was going to be next to the kitchen. Then when we suddenly appear and we are coming down to the kitchen and there is an empty bedroom upstairs it seemed that it wasn’t a very good situation for someone and that we weren’t going to get a good housemate if she didn’t have some private space. Not separate space, but some privacy. That was one purpose of the upstairs kitchen. Another reason is we used the downstairs as a living room and the upstairs as a dining room so when we had guests over for dinner we ate on the second floor not on the first floor. It meant we could prepare food and wash dishes there. The third reason is the roof-deck. I didn’t have it yet, but I had planned it since I first bought the place. Like anybody else in the summer we eat on our roof-deck and that’s in the third floor. We didn’t need another bedroom or a stray room on the second or third floor. We could use a place to wash dishes and prepare food. Now we’re not sharing the house, but I still want the kitchen there. MM – I think that the perplexity that the second kitchen has created, I am fully comfortable with what you just told me and what your intent is, I have no concerns at all. I think what part of Mr. Walsh’s concerns are and myself, I live in the area as well, is what do it open up for the future intent for that to be? Based on how the entrances are laid out, and how many entrances and egresses it’s very easy for someone to walk in there and convert it to a two family almost instantaneously because of how it is set up and designed. Part of the concern for everybody isn’t you, your intent or what you are doing. It’s what it could be. All I can tell you is the entrances and egresses is the way the building was. I guess I would say that if it is the City policy that people who live in a single family unit whether it be a condo, house, apartment or whatever. If it is the City policy that if they have a second kitchen then that’s the policy. Then if later somebody divides the unit that would be the time to deal with that. It doesn’t seem reasonable to say that we have a City policy. I’m not suggesting that you are saying this, but this could be the result that I am experiencing. We have a City policy that says you can do that, but in some instances we’re going to say “Oh what now we’re scared that something might happen in the future”. I know what you are saying about the building, it has that characteristic. As I mentioned in the last meeting, they are unusual and have a limited attraction. For that reason I think the real risk for the building isn’t that it will be illegal sub-divided, I suspect that it would be spotted if it were. The real risk for the building is that it would become unusable. You are either going to have many people living in it, or few people. My husband and I are a few people living in a unit that size. I understand your concern, but I don’t really understand what I can do about it. MM – It’s an interesting situation, because the Building Commissioner is the authority. I look at it as, what is the intent when something is done? I look at adding a kitchen as typically is a summer kitchen, the Commissioner has made the comment that it is not illegal to have two kitchens. I believe that it is correct, but my question is, what is the intent of that second kitchen? Your intent from what you had said initially was a little different from what the use is now. I’m ok with that, because you have been gracious enough to divulge everything and what your current use is. I think the neighbors concern is what could happen when the unit is sold, the second kitchen has put it at risk. A. Saalbach – The City code is still what it is. Nobody could divide it without coming here and getting a permit as Mr. Walsh has said. We haven’t changed the game plan. MM – This is a very unique case and the case is truly directed at how the Building Commissioner is making determinations. WW – Not to prolong this, but I do have just one comment. There is a discrepancy in the installation of the second kitchen. Ms. Saalbach said that she never had a permit to put in the second kitchen. If you go through the minutes you will find that the Building Commissioner stated that there was a permit. I have gone down and looked through the folder and there was not a permit for the kitchen in the folder. LM Chair – I spoke with the Commissioner and he said that he may have said that because he didn’t have his notes with him at the meeting. However there isn’t one. Since that meeting Ms. Saalbach has applied for one and I believe the Plumbing Inspector has signed off and the Building Inspector has also signed off. WW – However, he said at that meeting that there was a permit and that there had been inspections by plumbing and electrical. That statement was incorrect. LM Chair – I agree with you, I called him on that as well. We are going to close and deliberate. It will not be at this time because we do not want to push our case load too far behind for the evening. We are going to spend a significant amount of time on deliberation for this case and I am not in favor of doing that right now. A. Saalbch – I understand that you are not doing it right now. How will we know the results? LM Chair – Our decision will be included in the minutes. What are you deciding on? LM Chair – What has been presented to us and what we have been asked to rule on. Which is to overrule the Building Commissioners decision that the two properties are individually a single family one on the left and one on the right that is what we have been asked to rule on. WW – The Commissioner has ruled that the building is a two-family when in fact it is two condo units. MM – Do we have documentation in regards that it is a two-family? LM Chair – I believe that we are going to have to sort through all of these minutes again because I believe what you are saying this evening, and that may have changed a little bit. You had initially said that it was being operated as more than a two-family. There were tenants on the left that made it technically a three family building, two condos and Ms. Saalbach had someone living on her side. LM Chair – I think that was the initial, I think we’ve gotten away from that tonight. WW – His interpretation was that it was a two-family, and because of the “untraditional family” they could have some other tenants living there without a permit. VP – With all due respect, I believe that would be on Mr. Pennetti’s side where he has up to four unrelated roommates. My understanding from Lauren’s inspection is that there is free access throughout the entire side of the building. Ms. Saalbach thought that the way that unit is, is that there are so many rooms in there and it’s so big, there’s not necessarily a better use to put to it at this point and time. Ms. Saalbach – I had understood that when I read the minutes that the Building Commissioners labeling of us as a two-family house had to do with that this the category which a two unit condo would be regulated for purposes of parking and other things. I didn’t think he was stating that it was a two-family house. LM Chair – Thank you. These are the things that we need to go back and sort through. WW – He has sited in writing that his interpretation is that it is a two-family house and as such it has some status that makes it different than two individual condos. I checked with the State and according to the State he does not have the authority to change the classification of that house. It is a two condo house. He cannot call it a two family. I’m sure that there are people who can check on that. His argument was that it is a two family house and they can do whatever they want in there. My argument is that it is two individual condos and they need a permit. There’s two individual tax bills etc. There are no two-family houses in the City of Fitchburg that pay more than one. LM Chair – We know what that is for the record at the Registry of Deeds. Is there something that makes you feel it should be stated again, because of the two-family status? Because that only came to light at one of the meetings. WW – Yes I think that it needs to be stated again. That’s my objection to his judgment that it is a two-family house. VP – The Zoning definition of a two-family house is two attached dwelling units designed as the residences of two families including in-law apartments. Whether or not those two dwelling units are condo not condo however it is that they are is not outcome determinative on the issue of what is or what is not a two family. LM Chair – We will try to sort this out, whether it be this evening or next month I don’t have the answer for you, this is really if going to take a significant amount of our time. WW – Previously it was a two-family. Then the person who bought it tried to convert it to a three-family. He applied for a Special Permit and was denied. He then decided to cut his losses and convert it to two condos. That was fine with us, but his intention was make it a four or even family home at that time. LM- Chair – Thank you for your time and submitting all the info and allowing me to come into your home. Have a good evening. We are now closed for deliberation at another time. 8:30PM ZBA-2011-09 Scott Morrisey 89 Whalon Street Review of a Use Variance to store automobiles on the parking lot for HERTZ Rental Car Co. located in the neighborhood Business District 202/89/0 LM Chair – Please state your name for the record – Scott Patrick Morrisey – LM Chair – Can you tell us about how things have been going? I know we had a review a year ago, it’s that time again. Can you please tell me how things are going? SM – Basically it’s status quo. The HERTZ folks are pretty happy there, we don’t really hear a lot from them a lot. They have been a good tenant. Management has expressed positive words about the community and what takes place. LM Chair – How Long is the lease? SM – Five years with an option for another five. At this point it has been about 3 ½ years into it. I’m told that they have no reason to look elsewhere. LM Chair – No problems with us asking for that tent to come down? SM – There might be a little hurt feelings now and then, for them the hard part is being able to condition the vehicles. It is hard in the inclement weather. It’s sad that the building is situated the way it is. We could put a garage door on that end if the handicapped bathrooms weren’t there. I have talked to them in a very superficial manor about an idea for something to remedy the situation. But for now it’s just a quick conversation that we have had. LM Chair – You find that the property is clean? I went over and there was a vacuum and trash barrel that was about it. SM - Correct, when the cars come back they need to have someone there to condition them. We’ve just done some modifications to Pediatric West. We should probably consider putting up a little fence or something like that. They could pull the cars behind it and conditions them. JM – Maybe a car port? MM – You would probably have a favorable environment if you had a need to get a variance to put that type of structure up. SM – First I would have to see if they renew their lease and move forward. Is it possible that I could apply for a temporary permit say for the months of October –February? LM- Chair – You could ask us now. SM – Could I inquire of the Board if they provide with a permit of some sort for a temporary structure? To get the cars out of the rain to vacuum and clean them. MM – What are the thoughts? SM – I don’t want to see some little make shift tent that somebody has for a BBQ. If the Board would allow that, I would ask them to give us some sort of specifications and we would bring it back to you for approval. Some kind of rendering in spec. MM – What do they do in other locations that they are challenged like this? SM – In most instances they have a garage door to pull in. On the main South Street side you could theoretically put a garage door to the right side of the building. MM- If I could see a long term commitment from HERTZ I would be invested in getting them an interior place to clean the cars. SM – I like that concept very much. Very similar to Baker Cadillac, they have that drive thru drop off. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Hearing Closed: Deliberations: LM – Chair – Any questions? JM – No questions, I was there yesterday and reviewed the property. It was immaculate, I was very impressed. JB – I pass the property all the time, it’s very well maintained. MM – Awesome job. I’d be recommending that we approve the review. I’m not sure that we need another review if all conditions remain the same. We can put it on for a year. You are always welcome to come back to us for a change in conditions. SM – If I found a tent spec I could bring it back to you with some pictures, or a temporary structure they might want to try, I could bring that back to you? LM – Chair – Even if you are not on the Agenda, you could make a request through the Building Department with Lois. Just let her know that you would like to be added to the next meeting because we have a structure we would like to submit for approval. I t would be under your review. Not something you would have to a new application for. VP – You may be directed to file a new request with the Building Department. MM – Do we need a review in a year? LM Chair – I don’t. VP - It’s a key entry way into our City and I want to have a review. LM - Chair – Are there any conditions that need to be changed? MM – No. Just that the next review will be October 13, 2015. VP - Motion to approve the review with a 1 year review. MM – Second the motion Vote – Approved 6-0 8:45PM ZBA-2013-05 Mark Cordio 672 Water Street Review of a Special Permit under §181.313C11&13 to occupy a portion of the portion of the property for Automobile Sales and Washing located in the Central Business District at 109/35/A LM – Chair – Please tell us how things are going. MC – I have painted the container and. moved the dumpster as requested. It looks good. The trash is picked up every morning. Business is relatively good. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None MM – Recites the original conditions. 1. Special Permit will expire/terminate upon the transfer/sale of business from Mark A Cordio 2. No outside storage of auto parts, materials and equipment or inoperable vehicles 3. No drop-off boxes 4. Maximum number of cars for sale – 26 with other spaces provided for employees and customers 5. Mark Line 3’ from City property 6. No plastic banners or unprofessional signage 7. Hours of Operation: Monday-Saturday 8:00AM-7:00PM Closed Sunday 8. 6 month Review – September 9, 2014 9. Business not to be operated as a nuisance  10. Parking Plan showing flow of vehicles, illumination of property and dumpster to be submitted at time of Review 11. Dumpster to be kept to the rear of the property 12. Storage container shall be screened by fencing and painted to match the building located on the property. LM – Chair - Are you keeping within the numbers of cars and parking spaces allowed? MC – Yes, and I still have plenty of room. LM – Chair – I’m only asking because going by one day I counted about 35 cars. MC – Yes, there probably was. I sometimes get rid of about 8 to the junk yard at once. MM- Do you have the parking plan showing flow of vehicles, illumination of property and dumpster? This was condition # 10 at the time of approval for the Special Permit. MC – Honestly, I had no idea I had to have that. VP – How many spaces does he have there right now? MM – We don’t know, he hasn’t submitted the parking plan. LM – Chair – Mark, you did get a copy of the decision when it was filed, it is on there. I’m sure you know. MM – We didn’t have one at the last meeting. That is why we requested it for this meeting. LM – Chair – We wanted a more professional version. VP – If I remember correctly, I think you wanted to expand the 26 vehicle number. In order to do that you need to show me a professionally engineered plan to show me those extra spots. VP – We can put you on for a short review, and give you the time to do that. If you can have somebody show us that room, you can get more spots. A set of plans with the engineers stamp is what we need. LM – Chair – You could probably go back to the company that did the plan for the last people and it would be cheaper for you. MC – Most of what I have is from 2003. LM – Chair – If you would like to expand your business, we would like to help you do that. MM – I think you may have had a hand written rendition, and we requested that you have a professional plan for this review. LM – Chair – How long do you think you need to get this together? MC – I’m not sure. VP – Is 6 months good? MM – In the zoning bylaws, is criteria for a parking area. The professional that will be doing the parking plan, should be aware of the criteria. LM – Chair – Next review will be April 14, 2015 VP - Motion to approve the review with all the original conditions, add “second request” to # 10 and change #8 to 6 month review April 14, 2015. JC– Second the motion Vote – Approved 6-0 4. Miscellaneous Lm – Chair – I would like to discuss briefly where I think we are at with 1-3 Prospect Street. VP – Recall 1-3 Prospect St. LM – Chair – Would we like to delve into this tonight or set another evening to do so. VP – I talked to Mark Goldstein and I explained what my issues were. I don’t speak for everybody. He thought the best plan would be to finish collecting some information, and have him available for deliberation. Or, send him a written request. LM - Chair What I would like to know is, can we deliberate and have something on record at the Registry of Deeds coming from the Zoning Department that would outline each property separately stating that they cannot be sold as anything other than a Condominium Unit? We have that 1 for 1 and 1 for three. MM – What do you mean it can’t be sold? Define that. VP – I think she is talking about conveying, any way to make a conveyance to somebody else would be that anyone buying the property would be clearly notified that this is not a two family home. MM – But, presently on record it isn’t. It’s 2 Condo’s. LM –Chair – I don’t want to confuse this. VP – What record does it say that these are Condo’s? MM – The original deed that was crafted up when it became condominiums. LM – Chair – That’s why I want it to be on record at the Registry of Deeds that #1 it comes from the City and that it says that 1 Prospect is a single family condominium home and not to be sold or conveyed as anything but a single family. MM – But it can’t be anyway. LM – Chair – Then we may have some other findings with it. I want the same language for 3 Prospect also. I want it filed with each property to make sure that it is on record. So that the next buyer’s for both of these properties understands that even though they are 2 separate condominium units they cannot be cut up into multi-families. MM – It’s hard because the kitchens are already in there. Part of the issue is that in real estate listings you see “could be used as an in-law unit”, or “has second kitchen and has potential”. It’s a two pronged problem, it exists and then there is the opportunity to exploit it. JB – That can be done anywhere, anytime. If we take these properties and put highlights on them, why? The rest of the City is like that. MM – We certainly need to make some findings based on the facts we gathered. As far as what goes on the deed. LM – Chair – It’s not going on the deed, it will just be a separate filing at the Registry of Deeds. VP – Let’s stop for just a second. When Mike says that it’s on the deed he is referring to that as the chain of title. When Mike says the Condo, it’s already on the record. Which I would say is irrelevant to the actual use, sale or prospective use. Just simply because something is a Condo is doesn’t mean that it is to be only sold as an individual family unit. I could have a Condo, conceptually speaking that is five or six units. Just because there is a unit and it’s written up that way, and there’s a big condominium contract and it’s been approved and adopted and it’s filed in the Registry of Deeds, and the Governor signed it, they can still do what they want with it. That is what we all are trying to prevent. We are just starting to talk a different language. First of all we can’t do anything at all to the deed. What Lauren is saying is that we want to put a document in the Registry of Deeds, so that when some Attorney from a bank who looks into the deed of that property for financing purposes is going to see in that chain of title a very clear document from the City of Fitchburg that states 1 Prospect Street is only a single family unit and that 3 Prospect Street is also only a single family unit. That is what we want to make clear. MM – That title shows that. LM – Chair – No it doesn’t. MM – Sure it does. VP – That Condo document is only as good as the Association is willing to enforce it. LM – Chair – And they are the Association. VP – The building department is not going to enforce that Condo document. MM – I’m ok with doing what you want as long as the City Solicitor has deemed it ok. VP – The issue is that we are going to make a decision, it is or it isn’t, we overturn or we don’t overturn. But, when we overturn or not overturn we should make some specific findings. LM – Chair – And those findings should be filed with each property. VP – I think that the legal issue Lauren is bringing up is can we require the City and then turn around and file it? Or, do we have to go back to the petitioner, which is the ordinary course, and tell the petitioner here’s your decision go file it in the Registry of Deeds? That would be another one hundred twenty-five dollars for each unit that Bill would have to spend after already spending three hundred dollars to file the petition. I think out of fairness we shouldn’t make him file it. That’s the question we will ask the City Solicitor. JB – Just a couple of months ago we the opportunity for a family to extend its house almost twice the original size. To put in an apartment for their blind daughter. Now, are we going to demand that he go and file something on his deed that specifies that he cannot sell his house as a two family? LM – Chair – It does. MM – We did that already. Every one of those has a standard condition that this house shall not be sold or conveyed as a two family. JB – That answers my question. VP – We sat around with Jim Reynolds, Jim can up the incredible idea of, why don’t we just say that? We now include that as a standard condition in those cases. LM – Chair – I honestly think that we should deliberate and get this done now. I don’t think that it will take us more than a half an hour. What do you think? Do you want to move on this tonight? MM – No JC- I think if we can resolve it I would be in favor. LM – Chair – I would really like to get this done. MM – But we have question from the Attorney. VP – We have one question. Can we order the City to file this? LM – Chair – We can ask him to review our deliberation and see if he is in agreement, we can reserve the right to come back and deliberate again. JB – When we were talking about this earlier this evening and my answer was yes, we should sit here. I didn’t think that we were talking about what we ended up talking about. I thought what we were talking about initially is Bill Walsh said that 1Prospect Street was being used as a two family house. And the Building Commissioner said that they could be a two family house because it’s a Condo. That’s where it all started, because they were using 1 Prospect as a two family. LM – Chair – That is correct. I think Mr. Walsh changed his tone. MM – No, as the petitioner reiterated several times, it has nothing to do with the owners. His concern is how decisions are being made by the Building Commissioner. I’ve started to write down some findings or some recommendations back to the Building Commissioner, with respects to an intent. There wasn’t any intent. First of all, we probably wouldn’t even be here if that kitchen had not been put in. The comment was made by the Building Commissioner to us in support of allowing that second kitchen. To me sets the condition that Bill Walsh is concerned about, that we are all concerned about. When you walk into that building you can see that it can be made into two units with no real effort. It has all the doorways, entrances, and egresses it’s got all the makings of a two family. I personally would like to craft some language to the Commissioner that we recommendation that when making a decision or a determination of the addition of a second kitchen “what is the intent”? Is it true the intent is to have a summer kitchen where I have a home on a lake and have a walkout basement and a large extended family, during the summer I don’t want everybody walking through the main house. Or is it to just say, I have the right and that anybody that comes in before me, as the Building Commissioner and wants to put in a second kitchen I’m going to allow it. LM – Chair – My question to you, and to this Board is, is that really anything that needs to go into these findings? Or is it a separate notice that we need to send to the Building Commissioner, to say “here is what we are hoping will happen? MM – I would like to see it as a recommendation within the findings. VP - No, it will go right into the trash. It has to be a letter to City Council that says your regulations need to be adjusted because when people are coming in for these permits, this is the action that your Building Department is doing and this is what they should be doing and the reasons they should be doing it. LM –Chair – Because we are trying to prevent multifamily houses from sprouting up and the congestion caused by it. LM – Chair -I think that should be a separate issue. MM – Yes, but I think it needs to be addressed. JB – We could always attribute it to this, by starting out stating that it was brought to our attention by case ZBA#------ , Brought by Bill Walsh against the Building Department. MM – I would like to at least initiate some findings to go on record for this property. Let me just read them out and tell me if it makes sense or doesn’t make sense. 1. Owners of 3 Prospect Street had a second kitchen installed without proper permits. I would like to have that put in as a finding. That is a fact found that is undisputed. I would like that to go on record. 2. Another thought is, owner –owners of 3 Prospect Street should apply for necessary permits – variance if there is intent to use or have a second unit for accessory use or renters whatever. VP – We would simply say pursuant to section 181…… LM – Chair – They say they don’t have that intent. MM – I know, but I would like to make a finding that if it becomes their intent that they go through the proper procedure. Again, it’s a finding and we are basically stating that the second kitchen has been put in, that’s a finding. And as a result of the second kitchen being put in we would like, if they are going to have a second unit for it to be properly permitted. JB – The zoning for Residential B two family homes are allowed by right. They are not two family homes, they are two single condos. That’s where it all came from. VP – I’m trying to get each member to read, that is what the petition is about. JC – Ann was pretty quick when someone mentioned having a tenant to say it wasn’t a tenant it was a housemate. VP– It’s my opinion that they have been well educated by the Building Commissioner as to what’s appropriate. I have formed the opinion that he has an opinion as to what is ok there and he has helped them get to the point where it has to be ok. MM Again, I’d like to put in a finding that owner-owners of 3 Prospect Street require or need to apply for the necessary permits or variance if there is intent to expand the use to include a rental unit. LM – Chair – I’d rather stay away from that, I would just like to say expand the use. I don’t want to say a rental unit, because I don’t want to encourage it. I don’t even want to give them the thought that they can come here and do it. VP - I think what the Board needs to hear is Lauren’s inspection of the property. I kept saying to Lauren that if one of the unit owners wanted to submit a petition for a variance we might consider it. Especially if we could get control of the parking. She told me she would never be in favor of a variance there because it would be a permanent change. She has convinced me that it would be inappropriate, I agree that we should not do anything that might encourage any expectation. MM- Parking isn’t my issue. VP – Well parking is my issue. MM – There’s two parking spaces for each unit and that’s all they need. That’s the minimum requirement. JC– I have parking issues. My concern is with the visibility, information presented to us at the last meeting about people nearly getting hit in the crosswalk with the hedges and the cars moved forward. LM – Chair – We need to have this put on record. One person at a time please. JC - I also have issues with the access from Mechanic Street driving through the property coming off onto Prospect. LM – Chair – I agree we should make some findings regarding that issue. I think we should determine whether or not we want to allow or not allow it. I believe both owners do not want to allow it. We could make some findings in respect to that. JC – Additionally, you brought up the point of the cars parking around the fire hydrant and you brought it to MM – It’s not this property, it’s 18 Mechanic Street. VP – It’s the issue. The issue that this case really embodies is enforcement. LM – Chair – We can still make findings and recommendations because they have all been brought up. MM – Just back to your issue with visibility, if you go down there and stand at each crosswalk on every street and you walk across them or if you were to portray yourself in a handicap situation there is only one potential spot, when you are on Prospect and you want to cross Prospect onto their property. There are crosswalk signals in some locations and not in others. But, by adding those crosswalk signals it would remedy most of it. Let the Disability Commission handle that, let’s not go there. LM – Chair – We can still make findings and recommendations to other departments. MM – But, we can’t just in general say there is an impediment just because of the cars, because there really isn’t. LM – Chair – I agree. MM – They took all the shrubbery out in the last few days. If we’re going to make findings, let’s make sure that we are accurate. Again, you can make your whole property a parking lot if you want. VP – No you cannot, 181.5163 provides for a 10 ft. set-back for parking. MM – I thought we had come up with 3 ft. VP – A driveway was 3 ft., a parking lot is 10ft. MM- What’s the difference between a driveway and a parking lot? Is this a driveway or a parking lot? VP – It’s a parking lot, it services more than one building. If I look at the plans that she gave me there are six parking spaces. Maybe we should make a finding that it’s a parking lot. MM – Then it’s a parking lot and the Building Commissioner can enforce the proper code. LM -Chair – When we talked about this yesterday, we also talked about that because of this parking lot setup and the number of feet we can bring in 18 Mechanic Street for their setback. VP – Well there’s a side setback issue of 10ft. between Mechanic and Prospect both are considered front. As you go to the next property up you have a side yard setback between 1 Prospect St. and 18 Mechanic. I believe it needs to be a 10 ft. setback if it’s a driveway. Let me double check that. MM – It would be 10 ft. for 1 Prospect St. and 3 ft. for Mechanic St. Si it should be 13 ft. VP – Let me double check that. VP – 181.7511 Except for access strips of less than 50 ft. wide to rear lots or in the case of a common driveway as set forth below, which is an issue, no driveway will be located within 10 ft. of any side or rear lot line except by Special Permit issued by the Planning Board. So 18 Mechanic Street has to have a 10 ft. setback. JC – Did we determine that 18 Mechanic St. is a parking lot or a driveway? JB – It is a State Law that you cannot back out onto a highway. There is no way to turnaround there. Lm – Chair – Unless you went on the neighbor’s property. They don’t want it. JB – So what do you do? LM – Chair – We can put a finding on this as well. That the City refer it to the Planning Board, Public Works, Public Safety, Fire and Police to all review the property and have them make findings to us regarding this property. MM – Which property? LM – Chair – 18 Mechanic Street. Because it directly effects 1-3 Prospect Street I think we can bring it into it. I just want to take all of these issues that were the big issues in this case and try to address every one of them to the best of our ability. If all of these other departments decide that they are not going to act and that they are not going to be accountable then we have done our due diligence. VP – 181.5163 is the side yard setback on a driveway. 181.5144 states that off street parking shall be set back at least 3 ft. from any property line, Building or sidewalk. VP – Landscape requirements for parking areas. Buffer strips between any parking lot serving a multifamily but non- residential use shall meet the following specifications. MM – It is a multifamily. VP- No it’s not a multifamily. MM – I don’t know if it is. JM – What are they considering two condos then? JC – The Commissioner is saying it’s a two family. MM – Let’s look-up the definition of a multifamily. VP – According to the definitions in this book it is a two family. JC – I guess my point is that we can’t just shift gears half way through our findings and start saying that we have two single units that happen to be connected and then for the sake of the parking lot discussion we consider it a two family or a multifamily. And then we call these things into play. JM – Is there anything in there about condos? JC – I don’t know. VP - A multifamily is more than three units. That 10 ft. buffer is for a multifamily, so that’s gone. I guess we go back to Mike’s 3 ft. JM – So any property line, left, right center? VP – You still have a 10 ft. setback to a side yard. MM – That, I don’t believe. VP – That is 181.7511. JC – So are we saying that they can come within 3 ft. of the curb? JM – Are you talking from the curb to the property? JC – The property line I assume is the granite wall. JM – Basically isn’t a sidewalk about 3 ft.? VP- Here is the other thing that we looked at. The petitioner supplied us with this study. In this study it says driveway setbacks from street corners. 151-51 Driveways are to be setback 50 ft. or more from the street corner, to be measured from the nearest edge of the driveway to the crossroad edge of the pavement. All intersections, particularly at signaled intersection, driveway shall not be approved at street corners by the Commissioner of Public Works. My question has been, are they talking about the curb-cut there or are they talking about the quote “edge of the driveway? MM- You have me all over the map now I’m reading 181.7511. VP -What does that say? MM – Except in access strips of less than 50 Ft. with to rear lots, or in the case of a common driveway as set forth below, no driveway shall be located within 10 ft. of any side or rear lot line except by Special Permit issued by the Planning Board after the determination that sis driveway will provide safe and reasonable access for fire, police and emergency vehicles. VP – The only side lot line that they have is with 18 Mechanic Street. MM – Actually I’m talking 18 Mechanic Street. I guess both properties need to comply with that. VP – So there needs to be a buffer between their lots of 20 ft. between their driveways. JM – So you’re saying that here’s a driveway and there’s a driveway and there has to be 20 ft. between them? VP – This looks like to me to be about 10 ft. so this looks like the lot line and this is the other driveway, there has to be 20 Ft. in between them. JM – So, 10 ft. left and 10 ft. right. VP – That’s correct, from this property line. VP – We are saying that if you can drive all the way through it - violates that. JC - This is interesting, it is marked a draft, but do you know whether it was adopted? VP – Actually if you read that whole document it talks about as if it is only applying to curb cuts. A plain language guy and I see “edge of the driveway” and “intersection. Do you have anything to add to “edge of the driveway” or “intersection”? LM – Chair No MM – Do you have anything else to add that’s interesting? LM – Chair – No, it was just confirming about the condo units themselves, specifying would be good. You qualified it. You can have a condo complex that has 140 units in it. But, each condo has to be stated what’s within it. VP – Since you were gone we have realized that our parking lot concept that we were looking at with a 10 ft. buffer only applies to multifamily homes, which only applies to a house with more than three units. Therefore, it doesn’t apply to this case. Mike is still focused that there is a 3 ft. setback for parking and we are confirming that there is a side yard setback for the driveway of 18 Mechanic. There needs to be a side setback for both 1 Prospect St. and 18 Mechanic St. LM – Chair – What are you saying the setbacks should be? VP – Three feet and ten feet only in between the 18 Mechanic and 1 Prospect. Three feet everywhere else, ten feet for 18 Mechanic. LM – Chair – Do we think that we have that? VP – I’d have to go up and look at it. I know that we don’t have it here because everyone is telling me that you can drive right through there. LM- Chair – With the findings why don’t we say that we would like to refer it back to Engineering, Planning and have Fire and Police look at it? JC – Should we, instead of just referring it, spell out our concerns? MM – Let’s take care of Prospect Street and then if we want to as a result of being involved in the abutting property some of the things that have come to light. LM – Chair – I want to address all of the issues and concerns from this case. VP – I agree with Mike, let’s take care of one piece of property at a time. LM – Chair – Ok, but this is going to be included in our findings. MM – I hate to say this but we are forty-five minutes into the half hour and we haven’t even touched the surface. LM -Chair - I think we’ve touched the surface, I think we’re nearing the end. VP – I think that the Board hasn’t heard about your inspection of the property. LM – Chair – Ok MM – I’d really like to maybe even put this on for a second case one month and just work on hashing all this out. LM-Chair – We won’t be doing it next month, it will be two days before Thanksgiving. MM – So do it in December. LM – Chair – These people are eager to get an answer, and I’m eager to get this off my plate. LM- Chair – I would like to explain what my findings were at the property. Then I would like to make a suggestion of where we go with the property. My findings were, I went to the left side which is the Saalbach property. I found her unit to be open and flowing very well. It didn’t have closed entryways with locked doors or things like that. The second kitchen she did tell me was an issue, she did not pull a permit. She contacted the Building Commissioner about coming out, they did get their permits. The plumber came out and did what he needed to do. I viewed the whole property, I can understand why on her side she would like to have that secondary kitchen. It is a small kitchen, it’s like a summer kitchen, not big and glamorous. It’s your basic kitchen. MM – Is there a sink, stove, refrigerator? Is there a dishwasher? LM – Chair – Yes there is a sink, a small stove and refrigerator. There is no dishwasher. LM – Chair – I want you to understand the layout. The kitchen is here and you take two steps up and they have a beautiful enclosed porch and it is a beautiful sitting area. MM – The Deck? LM – Chair – Yes, the deck. JM – It’s closed in? LM – Chair – They have a fence around the whole thing, it’s beautifully finished and they have a nice spot. I did not see any problems, they have improved the property. One thing I did ask her is on that side of the property on Prospect Street are there were two dead meters and one meter for her side of the property. I asked her if she would be willing to call Unitil and ask them to take out the two dead meters, and then repair the siding. It’s plain and simple, we don’t have to worry that in the future someone saying they want to make that one condo into two apartments. MM – When you go in the front double doors is it a common hallway? LM – Chair – For each unit? MM – No. When I swing both of those front doors open are there two staircases that go up? LM – Chair – No, they are separate. Tony has his own staircase and Ann has her own staircase. MM – When I go up Ann’s staircase and I go up to the second floor is there I door I open? LM – Chair – No, it’s open. MM – So I just go up the stairs and I’m in her unit, it’s wide open. The first floor is the same thing? LM – Chair Yes, wide open. MM –When I go on her side and I go to the left I go into her living room there is a door. LM-Chair – There are two new doors that she installed that people thought that they were windows before. MM- She has a main door, when I go in that door I can go into that first floor through a door. LM-Chair – Yes, but it’s not a door it’s a doorway. It’s an opening. MM- Again when I go into that door on the left, I can go into her first floor and into her second floor. And to get into both of those there is no door at the top of the stairs or at the bottom? LM – Chair- That is correct. MM – How many rear doors or staircases are there to #3? In other words if I’m up on the second floor and there’s a fire, where do I go? LM – Chair – No, there is a first floor back door off of where the room with the washer and dryer is located Ann can go out there. But, from the second floor there is no other way down? LM – Chair – No JM – That definitely could not be a legal two family, there isn’t a second means of egress. LM – Chair – I didn’t find any problems with that. When I asked Ann to look into removing the dead meters she said that she would. She wrote back to me and she was a little reluctant, she said that she forgot that if she had the meters removed she would have to repair the siding and that she is not willing to accept the additional costs. Then she wrote to me at 8:00AM this morning and said that she would be willing to take those out if it was a deal breaker for the Board. JM – Unitil will not take them out. LM – Chair – I don’t care how she takes them out. My point is that she is willing to eliminate them. VP – We looked at 3 Prospect Street and it is a single family home up and down, and the two dead meters are going to be removed. LM – Chair – I say that we put that in our findings. JB – Where is the two meters going to go? You need another meter on the other side. LM – Chair – He has his own meter. JB – What about the common meter? LM – Chair – There are no common areas, they don’t need a common meter. JM – They are 2 separate units and there should be only one meter for each unit. JB – There are no common areas? LM-Chair No, there aren’t any common areas. VP – I think we need to be clearer when we talk about these things. There are no common areas between 1 and 3 Prospect Street. LM- Chair – Are we all in agreement that the two dead meters should be removed? ALL – Yes LM – Chair - ! Prospect St – It was a little bit different. Walked in and on the right there is a common stairwell that goes up. I say common because there are three or four people living in there. People are living upstairs, and people are living downstairs. The people that are living downstairs have a door, and it is a locked door that goes to a living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and some small ancillary areas. The you go upstairs and you are going into Nichol and her boyfriends area. They I believe live o the second and third floors. MM – Is there a locked door to get into their unit? LM - Chair – Yes LM – Chair – But, here’s the thing, they are all keyed exactly the same. And they all can go into the whole building. VP – Can they deadbolt theirs, when they go into their apartment? LM – Chair – No, no deadbolt. What I have determined in my assumption is that there are four roommates living together. They do have separate locked quarters? Yes they do. But they are interchangeable to go into the whole property. Mr. Pennetti told me that this is the way he bought the building and he hasn’t changed anything. If it makes everyone feel better, he would be willing to make entry doors without keys. JM – To me it sounds like that is more of a two family than the other side. LM – Chair – Remember, he offered to show me the lease agreement. The Lease has all four names on it. On one lease. JC - Let me just say this, I was talking to somebody that is studying law. I made a comment about the unconventionally family, and she was bewildered. She said that there is nothing she is aware of that indicates that. I made the comment about how the Commissioner saying about how the State Supreme Court came out with this ruling on an unconventional family and she was like “that’s insanity”. She could not uncover anything about that. VP – For our purposes a family is a person or number of persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit provided that a group of five or more unrelated persons shall not be deemed a family where not related by blood, marriage or adoption including wards’ of the State. So, do we have a group of people there that are living as a single housekeeping unit? I don’t know what that means. I was talking to Mark Goldstein today and my test for that is, when they go to the grocery store can anybody just eat anything they want? MM- I do have to leave. Re you going to wrap it up tonight? Get the majority of it and we do another review. What’s the plan? LM – Chair – I don’t want another review, I want it to be done. VP – Based on what we all just heard, can we make a final finding that 1 Prospect Street is being operated as a two family house? LM – Chair – No it is not, that is my opinion. Anybody else? JC – I would agree with that, that’s Ann’s side? VP – No, Anne’s side is not an issue. It’s the other side. LM- Chair – You said 3 Prospect. VP – I said 1 Prospect. LM – Chair – Ok, 1 Prospect do you believe it’s a, even if we find it’s a two-family home JB – What are you going to do about it? VP – We are going to overturn. What we can do is, we can say that the petition is approved. We overturn the Building Commissioners ruling. LM – Chair – I don’t feel that’s a two family home. JM – Pennetti’s VP – We are going to overturn the decision, that the building to the best of our knowledge and belief is two units, and in fact that the building 1-3 Prospect Street is three units. Are we going to overturn the ruling based on what we just heard? That is the only issue. JM – So the whole thing is that we are saying that it is two units and the one on the other side has four people living in it. Two people live upstairs and two people live downstairs, but they can go within the house. LM-Chair – They have one heating bill, one lease one electric bill. MM – Technically it’s being used correctly. I think everybody’s concern is what could happen to it in the future. VP – My concern is that it is being used correctly, but in reality it’s being operated as a two family house. Technically the Building Commissioner might be right. JB - I’m thinking it’s more like four people living in one house. He has taken this thing and divided it into four rooms and made it like a rooming house. MM – It’s been like that for years. The two kitchen’s on the right have been there for years. JB – Herb Chapman put those in when he owned it. No permit, he told me no permit. MM – Maybe we should ask Pennetti to get his kitchen permitted? LM – Chair – Why? JB – Because there was no permit when it was put in. LM – Chair – I think he is willing to put the entry doors in there. And if he is willing to do that, let’s just ask him to do it. MM – Maybe we could go back to what I wanted to put in for conditions with regards to the language I had crafted for 3 Prospect maybe should be put in for 1 Prospect also. LM – Chair - What type of language? Do you want to give it to me and I then I can type these all up and email them to everybody and see if we are in agreement and send them to Mark Goldstein for review. MM – What kind of findings do you want to make in connection with the whole way this thing came about? JB – I think that the whole thing revolves around the way the Building Department says things to different people. MM – So do want me to email this to you? LM _ Chair – Let me take a look at it. MM – The top is just an idea that I think we should communicate to the Building Commissioner. VP – The original letter from Mr. Walsh to the Building Commissioner is December 27th is that the building is being used in a non-conforming way in a Residential B District. LM – Chair – Let’s take a straw poll on this. Does 1 Prospect Street (Pennettis side) need to apply for a permit for the second kitchen? MM – I think that we should put a finding in that if he has an intent to use his condominium as two rental units then he should apply for the necessary permits. VP – I don’t think we should do that. If you say on this side we had a kitchen that was put in without a permits and inspections and the Building Department saw it appropriate to go in after the fact and inspect, permit and sign off on the installation on this kitchen. On the other side you have the exact same thing, but no such action has been taken. Then that’s it. That’s a finding. JC – Also, if we can get him to take the locked doors out. JM – He already said he would do that. MM- I think that is something we could make a recommendation. Again I think that we are drifting from what is before us. LM – Chair – But it is a finding. VP – We have a petition to overturn a decision. The decision was whatever that letter is. And our decision is to overturn that. Why don’t we do this so we that we don’t have to meet by committee. If anybody wants to submit proposed findings, proposed conditions or proposed decisions they email them to Lauren within the next week. LM – Chair – Then I will email the final draft to everyone. 5. Adjournment Michael McLaughlin – Motion to Adjourn Vincent Pusateri II – Motion Seconded