Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder ZONING Drive Fitchburg, Massachusetts MINUTES July 14, 2015 ATTENDANCE: Lauren McNamara -Chair, Vincent Pusateri Co-Chair, Joseph Byrne, Joseph Maramma, Michael McLaughlin, Nicholas Squailia 1. Call to Order LM Pledge of Allegiance: All 2. Communications: Attendance: LM,VP, JM, MM, JB, NS 3. Hearings 6:45PM ZBA – 2015 – 04 Michael Longley 402 Broad Street Special Permit under section §181.313.D.5 to conduct a construction, excavation, and demolition business and store construction vehicles in the Industrial District at 28/10/Lot A - 402 Broad Street LM – Chair – We are going to continue deliberations on this case from the June 9, 2015 meeting. If we cannot get through this quickly we will continue the discussion under miscellaneous at the end of tonight’s meeting. Our task was to deliberate on this case and come up with a set of conditions and see if we are all in agreement. JB – My thoughts are that the applicant did absolutely nothing to improve that property. Maybe he did something to repoint the building but to make it appealing to the neighborhood, he has done nothing. We asked him to take care of the driveway with the logs in it, they are still there. We asked him to take care of the sign, there is still five feet of weeds going through the sign. He hasn’t taken care of the fence which is also full of weeds. I’ve known Mr. Longley for a long time and don’t understand why he is flaunting his not doing what he has been asked to do. VP – Is there anyone who is here for the petition? LM – Chair – No, we’re just here for deliberations. Would you be in favor of the petition with conditions? Or are you in opposition? JB – I would be in favor of the conditions if the applicant showed some initiative in getting some of the property taken care of so it looks at least passable as a piece of property in the city. Also, his neighbors would feel more comfortable, there has been a lot of investment. Mr. Longley has not done anything for the property values in the neighborhood. VP – This is for Crocker Field and the Construction yard correct? I’m not in favor of the petition, I think that the use is inconsistent with the neighborhood. I’m also not in favor of any proposed conditions because there simply will not be any enforcement. If we could have some faith in the fact that these things would be enforced then perhaps we could set conditions for a property like this having a very difficult use next to Crocker Field. But, you can’t because there will be no enforcement. Therefore I am not in favor of the petition. LM – Chair – Let me ask you a question. Is it the petitioners’ fault that there is no enforcement? VP – There’s a lot of players at the table. JB – It’s not at all his fault that we don’t have enforcement, it’s the City’s fault. LM – Chair – We do have enforcement, they just don’t follow through. JB – We sit here until 12 o’clock at night putting thing together and the nothing happens. VP – I am up to hearing other comments from the Board. NS – From hearing the petitioner talk some of the things he has held up on doing was waiting to have the property surveyed. Such as the logs that were blocking the driveway that gave an easement to the property behind him, putting up the new fence because he has to work some of the things out with the owner of the property behind him. At the end of the day I hear what you’re saying about enforcing these things but he seems to be putting in an effort. He has done a few things over there, might not be as much as you would like to see. JB – He sure had his trucks parked all over the place though with no rhyme or reason. We asked that he have them parked in such a manner that it would be orderly. JM – I agree with Joe whole heartedly, he did nothing. He could have at least cleaned the property up. I realize he had the easement and fence and all of that. I believed that was all squared away at the last meeting. He said he had somebody from the fence company that he was going to talk to. He did nothing. If you go to P.J. Albert’s yard all the trucks are always in line, the yard is clean, there are three businesses there and everything is always nice and clean. He said that this was his busy time of year and I can appreciate that. But, he’s has a trucking company and has the equipment and I feel he hasn’t made any effort to clean the property up all. Right now I am not really that much in favor of the petition. MM – I would look favorably on this petition with a list of conditions, maybe do a short one month review. I met with the petitioner and talked to him about what my expectations would be and mentioned that it would be a short window and a continual review process to make things move along. The Board as it has in the past when conditions are not being met would revoke the permit. LM – Chair – Could you give us a sampling of the conditions? MM – Based on my visit to the property I would like to see the following conditions. 1. No outside storage of construction materials / debris / hazardous materials 2. No vehicle repairs to be done outside of the building 3. No storage of unregistered vehicles outside 4. No parking and or loading on the street 5. Landscape and plantings to shield vehicles along the fence (for example –Arborvitaes) 6. Landscape island surrounding sign in front of the building 7. Enclosed area to be graded with regrind 8. Parking lot in front to be paved 9. Removal of the no parking signs on the telephone poles 10. Remove all barbed wire to front of the property and repair the remaining barbed wire 11. Remove all debris stored on the property 12. Repair all fence panels 13. All vehicles or heavy equipment to be stored at the rear of the fenced in area in an orderly fashion 14. Right of Way – Remove logs / Replace with locked gates on both ends 15. Additional conditions may be added at the September 8, 2015 review @ 9:00PM I have a host of things that I would like to see done in a very short window. LM – Chair – I like what you have so far. As you know I have viewed the property as well and spoke with the petitioner, he does seem sincere. I would like to give him a chance to get some of these items done in a short window. I think that this is something that I think that we can enforce if it is not enforced by the Building Department staff. JB – Can we issue a temporary? VP – Having the review on it is like a temporary. LM – Chair – He needs to get started on some of these things. I think we should table this later this evening. MM – Motion to continue ZBA – 2015 – 04 deliberations. JM - Second Vote 6-0 to continue 7:00PM 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 LM – Chair – Please tell us how things are going. TP – At 150 Benson Street we are currently moving a lot of the product down to the new location right down the street so there has not been a tremendous amount of change at 150 other than landscaping, keeping the road from 150 t0 88 Benson clean and presentable. That’s basically where we are at for now. At some point later this year we hope to reface the front of the building, pretty soon we should be done at 88 Benson and after that I hope to put the whole crew on redesigning the whole front of the property. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Open to the Board: VP – Could we go over the original conditions for this Variance? LM – Chair – Reads the conditions aloud to the rest of the Board. VP – Would the Board like to discuss setting a time period for the sunset clause? LM – Chair – Counsel has told us that we should probably put a time period on a sunset clause rather than just leave it open ended. TP – Then does it come back for a review or reapplication? MM- A reapplication. VP – I think we can put it on for a review and extend the time period. Then he wouldn’t have to reapply. MM – You could come in prior to the expiration and ask for an extension. VP – He will probably want a review in a year anyway. TP – I would say within a year anyway, and if we’re ready sooner to come before the Board with a plan I can request a review. There is no cost for a review, just come in and say that you would like a change in conditions. VP – Didn’t we do fifteen years on the previous one? LM – Chair – Yes, we went fifteen years. TP – If we can do it for fifteen years that’s fine with me. MM – I’d like to see a shorter time period, five years because we’re not revoking it, just putting a time line on it. VP – I’m against five years because Tim needs to know that he has a significant period of time and can continue to keep making investments in the property. I would be inclined to give him the fifteen years. MM – How does the rest of the Board feel on this? LM – Chair – I agree with Vinny on that MM – Ok, let’s do the fifteen and a one year review. Finding: Change on the Sunset Clause is pursuant to instruction by the Assistant City Solicitor. Amended Conditions: 1. Hours of operation – 7:00AM – 5:00PM - Monday thru Saturday Closed Sunday 2. 1 Year Review – July 12, 2016 3. Maximum 10 vehicles for sale on display for sale at one time 4. Maximum of 126 vehicles allowed in staging area awaiting to be dismantled 5. Not to be operated as a nuisance. 6. Sunset Clause – 15 Years - July 14, 2030 Close and deliberate VP – I’m good with those two changes. JM – I’m good JB – I’m good MM - Likewise MM - Motion ZBA-2014-08 – To approve the review with conditions as amended. JM – Seconded Vote – 6-0 To approve the review with conditions as amended. 7:15PM ZBA-2013-08 Maria Mendoza 494 Rollstone Street Review of a Special Permit to continue running a Large Family Day Care from her residence located in the Residential A-2 District at 92/40/0 LM – Chair – Could you please give us an update us and tell us how things are going? MM – There haven’t been any changes. We fixed the things that you asked us to take care of at the last meeting. The parking issue is fixed and the buses are parking in the parking lot instead of in the front. We also removed the rubbish and other things that were blocking the door on the porch. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Open to the Board: JM – I reviewed the property, the place looks nice, it’s clean and they met the requirements so I’m happy with it. MM – Good job. JB – Do you still have your state license and have you maintained your insurance? MM – Yes, everything is up to date. Both my State license and my insurance are current. VP – How does a two year review sound to the Board? LM – Chair – I was thinking about no further review. MM – I would like a two year review. VP – I’m good with two years. JM – Two years is good. MM – Sometimes I go on vacation in July to see family. Could we have the next review in September? LM – Chair – That’s fine. Close and deliberate LM – Chair – Does anyone have any questions? All – No LM- Chair – Is everyone in agreement with the conditions as amended. All - Yes Amended Conditions 1. 2 Year Review 7/12/2017 2. Not to be operated as a nuisance including no parking on sidewalks 3. Comply all the laws of the Commonwealth of MA in regard to family daycare 4. Special Permit to terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of the property or change of ownership/operation from Maria Mendoza MM - Motion ZBA-2013-08 – To approve the review with conditions as amended. JM – Seconded Vote – 6-0 - To approve the review with conditions as stated. 7:30PM ZBA-2015-08 Margaret Lawler – Shayne Jordan 551 Townsend Street Special Permit under 181.34 to erect a garage/accessory apartment located at 551 Townsend Street in the RA-1 District at 162/4/0 LM – Chair – Please tell us about your petition. SJ – We are proposing to build a three car garage with an addition above for her parents with an additional 11 x 12 mudroom. LM – Chair – Chet and Helen are your parents Margaret? ML – Yes LM – Chair – Do you have anything else to add at this point? Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Open to Board JB – The plan reads “Building Permit Plan in Leominster, MA.” SJ – That is a misprint. The plan is for 551 Townsend Street, Fitchburg, MA. MM – What is the square footage of the apartment? SJ – It is 786 Sq. Ft. Any other question? Do you have anything else to add before we close as we will not be taking any other information? ML – No LM – Chair let me ask you a few questions. What is your construction time? SJ – Once we have the permit we estimate the job to take 60 to 85 days. LM – Chair – What about cleaning up the debris? SJ – We will have an onsite dumpster and throw as we go. LM – Chair – What about the façade of the structure? Is it going to tie in to the original structure and look identical to the original? SJ – Yes, it will have siding, paint and look the same as the original structure. LM – Chair – Any other questions before we close for deliberations? Close and deliberate LM – Chair – Any conditions? JB – I have no problems with it. I’m fine with the standard conditions. NS – Same, I’m good. VP – One of the things we look at is how they are going to return it to a single family use when they no longer need the accessory apartment. Maybe what we should do on these petitions is have a short statement as to how they plan to single family use once it no longer complies. LM – Chair - Maybe we should look at doing that for future petitions. VP – As a standard condition? LM – Chair – Yes JM – I agree with that. Other than that I’m good. MM – We have a standard list of conditions, correct? LM – Chair – Yes, and I am also in favor of the petition. This petitions expires in five years, we do have standard conditions which will address some of the question that we asked. Lois is getting them for us now. MM - Motion ZBA-2015-08 – To GRANT the Special Permit as requested with the standard conditions as stated. JM – Seconded Vote – 6-0 - To GRANT the Special Permit with conditions as stated. 7:45PM ZBA-2015-09 Frederick Cuddy 112 Swan Ave. Request for a Variance to erect a single family dwelling on a lot that lacks adequate frontage at 112 Swan Avenue located in the Residential RA-2 district at 185/24/A LM – Chair – Please state your name for the record. RC – My name is Frederick Cuddy. LM – Chair – Please tell us about your petition. FC – I bought this lot years ago with the intent to build a house for my daughter. Then life changed and the economy changed and I tore down the existing structure. As time went by I just didn’t realize that I couldn’t just put a house back on it. I guess now after two years I have to come up with 100 ft. of frontage and I am 10 ft. short. I have a buyer for the property and need to resolve this issue prior to the sale. LM – Chair – So you are looking for relief on 10 ft. in the front. FC – Yes, please. LM – Chair – Anything you would like to add to that? FC – I don’t think I have anything that would really sway your thoughts. LO – I have information from the Planning Dept. concerning this petition for distribution to the Board from Mike O’Hara. LO - It is a reply from the response sheet I sent out. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Favor: None Diane Flathers 85 Kennedy Ave. Bill Turner 85 Kennedy Ave. David & Betty Griffith, Maynard, MA BT - There was a house on this lot before and someone had taken it down and started to rebuild. I believe it was Mr. Cuddy. And as he said with the economy and other things he had to put it on hold. My feeling is that there was a house there at one time, why can’t there be on again? LM – Chair – So you’re more in favor of it rather than seeking information. DT – That’s correct. Mr. & Mrs. Griffith are interested I purchasing the property and are also in favor of the petition. We intend to build a small house on the property, actually under 1,000 sq. ft. Hopefully it will be a net zero home which will be well insulated and have solar energy. VP – So your intention is to buy the real estate, build a house and move in there? Mr. & Mrs. Griffith – Yes, we are moving into Fitchburg. LM Chair – Reads the communication from the Planning Board. The Planning Board recommendation is to combine the 8100 sq. ft. parcel referred to as MAP 184/24/A and abutting vacant 18,900 sq. ft. parcel referred to as 0 Kennedy Ave. MAP 186/25/0 is in the same ownership. That portion of Kennedy Ave. is unbuilt. We suggest that if the ZBA should be willing to grant a variance that it be conditioned that O Kennedy Ave. be incorporated into 112 Swan Ave. be incorporated in order to make a combined lot of 27,000 sq. ft. conforming as to lot size and eliminating an orphaned lot that would be unbuildable on its own. VP – So there is no objection if we stated that all this real estate is to be conveyed together. FC – That’s fine. Open to Board LM – Chair - Does the Board have any questions? NS – No, I’m fine. VP – As long as we don’t have any set-back issues I’d be in favor of the petition. JM – I’m good. MM – When we look at a variance we have to listen to the hardship with respect to soil, shape and topography. Can you bring us through that? FC – I personally had an accident and was laid up for a few years and my whole career changed. I’m now in real estate. MM – How many feet are you looking for in reduction on the set-back. FC – 10 Ft. MM – And you meet all of the area requirements? The house will meet the set-back requirements? FC – Yes VP – The shape of the property also includes 0 Kennedy Ave. and the hardship that they have there is that Kennedy wasn’t actually fully constructed. Had Kennedy been fully constructed they wouldn’t need the frontage variance. Close and deliberate LM – Chair – Does anyone have any conditions? NS – No JB – I’m fine with it. I was talking to the next door neighbor and he said he was fine with it and has no problem. VP – No, all good. JM – I’m good with it. MM – I think this is unique that there was a house there prior and the parcel meets all of the criteria except for the minimal 10 ft. frontage. It’s in a quiet wooded area and it’s in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I feel that it does meet the criteria for a variance and I would be in favor of it. LM – Chair – I am also in favor of the petition. I would like to ask that when we entertain the motion that we include both parcels, just so it’s clear. It does state in our package and the deed, just so we are addressing the issue with the Planning Board. MM – Motion on ZBA 2015-09 to APPROVE the Variance with the conditions that 0 Kennedy Ave. and 112 Swan Ave. be conveyed as a single unit with a total of 27,000 sq. ft. JB – Seconded Vote – 6-0 To APPROVE the Variance with the conditions that 0 Kennedy Ave. and 112 Swan Ave. be conveyed as a single unit with a total of 27,000 sq. ft. 8:00PM ZBA-2015-10 Brenda L. Sullivan 58 Valley Street Request for a Variance under 181.922 and 961, and a Special Permit under 181.34 to occupy an existing accessory apartment located at 58 Valley Street located in a Residential RA-2 District at 139/26/0 LM – Chair – I am going to recuse myself from this case as I know the petitioner. Vinny Pusateri will be Chair. Deb Phillips – Is it safe to assume that all of the Board Members that are going to act have read the application? VP – No Deb Phillips – I understand you guys have a long agenda so I understand. VP – Why don’t you take us through it? Deb Phillips – Mrs. Sullivan Purchased this property in 2013. It previously had a Special Permit for an accessory apartment that had been granted by this Board in 2005. She bought the property for her adult daughter who is the mother of the two young girls that are here with us tonight and is a disabled person. Mrs. Sullivan did live in the accessory apartment initially for a period of time. She didn’t realize that there was an issue when she purchased the property. She did have the title run, she did know that it was subject to Special Permit. Something that you might know is that on the Special Permit it doesn’t say that it is limited in time or that it is limited to a person. You have to actually know to go behind it and look up the ordinance. In any event this is pursuant to a specific section of the City Ordinance, the accessory apartment. She didn’t know that she needed to do anything, she wasn’t deliberately trying to violate the City’s code. She did receive a letter from Mr. Lanciani that complaints had been received about the property. That she was placing her property in violation. She immediately called and received the packet from the City to apply. The problem here is the City Ordinance section for Special Permit requires that the owner occupy one of the units. At the point and time Mrs. Sullivan can’t do that because her daughter needs more help than she can provide. And that was the whole reason for purchasing this property and Mrs. Sullivan moving into the accessory apartment to begin with. Now we have a dilemma because Mrs. Sullivan cannot make the certification under the Special Permit provision in the Ordinance that says that she will promise to be an occupant of the property. However, the Zoning Board actually has the authority to vary that. They have that authority under the Federal Fair Housing Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to someone because of the handicap. I have this in a letter that I can submit to you (Exhibit #1). The Federal Law specifically provides that a Board may grant a Variance from any provision to allow a reasonable accommodation for a disabled person. In fact, most courts nationwide at the State level and the Federal level have recognized this. Indeed, Massachusetts has. Initially in 1997 that was one of the early cases that I found. The Court stated that the FFHA specifically applies to Municipal Zoning Ordinances and it held the City of Boston in violation at that time by not granting reasonable accommodation. They did provide us with some standards for Zoning Boards so you can make an analysis of what is a reasonable accommodation. The Courts have instructed that the City should grant a Variance where it will not cause an undue hardship or fiscal or administrative burden on the City and where it is in conformity of the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Now in this case Mrs. Sullivan is not proposing to make any changes to this property. No construction, and in fact there will be less congestion on this property and this street as a result. I understand the previous owners maintained 4 or 5 vehicles on this property. There is a 2 car garage and there is also plenty of off street parking. VP – Are you done explaining the Federal rule to us and the criteria? JB – Before we go any further I just want to clear this up. Living in this home is Mrs. Sullivan, her daughter and grand- daughters? Deb Phillips – No, not right now, Mrs. Sullivan was living in this home in the accessory apartment. JB – Is the accessory apartment vacant right now? Deb Phillips – No, the accessory apartment has a caretaker living in it because Mrs. Sullivan didn’t realize that she couldn’t have somebody else live there. JB – Caretaker for the daughter? Deb Phillips – Yes, exactly. If you want the medical explanation I have it. JB – I just wanted to understand who was living there and why. Deb Phillips – Unfortunately Mrs. Sullivan cannot provide the level of physical service that her daughter needs in order to live independently. So she is a full-time caretaker? Deb Phillips – Is she full-time? Mrs. Sullivan – She lives there, yes. VP – As a full-time caretaker? Mrs. Sullivan – That is one of the responsibilities, it’s not a full-time 24/7 job so they have another job. But they are available 24/7 to me. I should say to my daughter. VP – Does she pay rent? Mrs. Sullivan – That individual does pay some rent. A reduced rent in exchange for the services they provide. Deb Phillips – That is from the tax card and that is what the property will continue to look like. MM – Where does Mrs. Sullivan reside now? Deb Phillips – I believe that is I the application. MM – 29 Pearl Street Deb Phillips – Yes MM – So, you said you lived at this particular property. Mrs. Sullivan – Yes, it was a requirement for my mortgage to live there for the first year. For it to be owner occupied. Deb Phillips – Not knowing that it was a requirement for the City as well. MM – So, you still owned the home at 29 Pearl Street in Lunenburg when you bought this property and you moved out of that property to the Valley St. property for a period of a year? Mrs. Sullivan – Moved out temporarily, my husband still lives at the 29 Pearl Street address. I developed some health issues that I needed to move back and that changed the dynamics of how things were going to be. MM – You mentioned that full-time care is required. Deb Phillips – The nature of this young ladies disease is a rheumatological condition that she has had since she was 10 years old. There’s two diseases actually. Her condition is known as a mixed connective tissue disease. MM – I’m not questioning that. Deb Phillips – To understand it, it is scleroderma and dermatomitivecitis. Which in here case affects her hands significantly so there is a deformity, joint weakness, loss of flexibility and your muscles waste. For example, lifting a child up, buttoning their coat, opening a jar. Some things on a lot of days she cannot do. Obviously she would like to continue to live with her children and be a family unit as long as she can possibly can live independently with this caretaker there who can perform physically more of the tasks than Mrs. Sullivan can at this point. MM – The caretaker is? Deb – Phillips - Not a Registered Nurse or anything, it’s somebody that does physical things for the young lady and helps her with her children. MM – So, that person is not in the medical industry. Deb Phillips – No MM – And again, they work full-time. Deb Phillips – They have another job but they are available to be with Stephanie when she needs them. It’s an accomodation, it’s a way to keep a family intact in a single family home. I know that the Board is well aware of the five year provision in the city’s ordinance for the Special Permit. You may, I don’t know whether this Board often does it but you probably know that you can also put a time limit on a Variance even though the Variance is run with the land and it could be of a concern. You can put a time limit on it. you can put conditions on it. You can condition the Variance and the Special Permit on Mrs. Sullivans’ ownership, on her daughters’ occupancy or a period of time. The ordinance right now for the Special Permit is five years, so I would suggest five years. VP – Before we do questions I want to get some input from the audience. Those Seeking Information: None Those in Favor: None Those Opposed: Patricia Legendre, 65Valley St. Brian Regan, 73 Valley Street Harry Parker, 81 Valley Street PL – My house is almost across the street from their house. And there are some conflicts here as far as what has been said. When the house was purchased it was a mother-in-laws apartment. Mrs. Sullivan never lived there for a year. She would come back and forth to cut the grass but she did not live there. There has been a number of people in and out of there, the last time there was a man, a woman, a baby, and a high school kid. Now I believe the person living in that apartment right now is Stephanies boyfriend. She introduced me to him. I also have paperwork here that shows that the property was listed in Fitchburg as a seven room one-family residence. I believe it was supposed to be converted back into a single family when the Leger’s left and it was not. VP – Is there anything else? PL – They were saying about the family that had owned the house before having five cars, they did not, they had three cars. VP – Is there any specific issue about the house that strikes you as it being operated as a two-family home currently? PL – Yes, the people coming in and out of that apartment constantly. VP – Councilor, the audience indicated that the person living in that apartment is Stephanies boyfriend. Would you like to address that? Deb Phillips – No, I don’t know the person living in the apartment. I do know that my client did live there most of the first year she owned the property. She does work, and she does have the other part of her family which obviously she would spend time with. Frankly, I think that’s irrelevant how many people come and go. VP – I’m just stuck on who is the tenant? Mrs. Sullivan – He is the caregiver his name is Eddie Diaz. VP – The suggestion has been that he has been introduced as Stephanies boyfriend. Is that an accurate statement, is that an inaccurate statement? Mrs. Sullivan – That is an inaccurate statement. VP – The property was listed as a single family home is the next point that was brought up. Deb Phillips – I don’t recall as I did not represent Mrs. Sullivan in the purchase. It is a single family home. It’s on the tax card as a single family home. It had an accessory apartment pursuant to the Special Permit. I believe it was an older lady that they petitioned for, I did not read the entire package from 2005. VP – How many different tenants have there been since she purchased the property? Mrs. Sullivan – The person that she is referring to is a gentleman that had a girlfriend that lost her job and she had two children by this man. It was just before Christmas. She asked if she could stay there until she got a job and found housing. It was the holiday and it was going to be temporary and I said that she could stay there. In April she got a job and moved out. Deb Phillips – The only caretakers were Mrs. Sullivan and the young man who lives there now. NS – And the caretaker gets paid? Mrs. Sullivan – He has a reduced rent. VP – Sir in the back row can you tell us your name? BR - My name is Brian Regan and I live at 73 Valley Street. I live next to Pat a little further down the street. I have never met anybody that is currently living or may have been living at the house in question here. I am glad that I came to hear what I have heard so far. To be very honest with you, I am concerned at what the Board has been told previously. It leaves a lot of questions as to what’s going on here. As a resident on that street for 16 years plus I am glad I came because I believe we need to get to the bottom of what’s really going on here because I’m not really sure myself. I think that what has been presented to you perhaps something other than what you’ve been told. VP – What has been presented to us is what we have been told. But, what you are suggesting is that the property is being used as a two-family home. Is that what you’re saying? BR – The potential is there based on what I’ve heard. Again, I am basically being educated by being here. I’m just concerned that this house may have been and will continue to be essentially a two-family rental property not a single family home. We have a really nice quiet street. I didn’t grow up in Fitchburg, but I had lived here on Valley St. for 16 plus years. VP – I don’t have any specific factual assertion just a general concern about the quality of a single-family or two-family. Deb Phillips – I would just like to say that my client has improved the condition of the property since she has purchased it. It did not look like the photograph on the current tax card when she purchased it. It’s abutted on two sides by multi-family housing that leaves quite a lot to be desired. I can understand a concern in the neighborhood for wanting to protect its boundary. And this is the first house that is “single-family” on that portion of the street on that side of the street. I can only say that this Board has the authority to put conditions as I said on both the Variance and the Special Permit that we are seeking. VP – There is another gentleman in the back, your name sir. HP – Harry Parker 81 Valley Street. I’m just afraid that if you do pass it as a two-family residence that our property values are going to go down. That is my main concern. Deb Phillips – We’re not asking that it be converted to a two-family we are simply asking that Mrs. Sullivan be allowed to use the accessory apartment that already exists, she is not going to build anything, she is not going to expand the footprint, she is not going to make any changes to the exterior, that she be allowed to use it not for herself as the owner which is one of the requirements of the accessory apartment provision which goes to Mr. Mc Laughlins question. I am seeking a Variance from that provision, I am asking you to vary that, to stray from it under the Federal Law which allows you to do that and in fact, it mandates that you do that if it is necessary to provide a reasonable accommodation for this family to remain living in the dwelling it has chosen. NS – Is there access from the main structure to the rental or second structure? Deb Phillips – I don’t know I have never been inside. Mrs. Sullivan – Interior, you can go through the garage to go from one apartment to the other. NS – So right now the caretaker pays rent in form of payment for services? Mrs. Sullivan – Correct NS – And he doesn’t have any kind of medical background? Mrs. Sullivan – Correct Deb Phillips – A medical background isn’t required for what he is being asked to do. VP – How much is the rent there? Mrs. Sullivan - $550.00 VP – Is there a written lease agreement? Mrs. Sullivan – No NS – How many caretakers have you had since you’ve been there? Mrs. Sullivan – Since I left there was one young man that didn’t work out. Then this gentleman who was a friend of the family offered to come in and help Stephanie. He does errands, he picks the kids up from school when it is necessary, he does yard maintenance such as mow the lawn snow plowing, if he can’t do it he will get somebody to do it. I know my daughter is safe, if she has any problems at all she calls him and he comes next door. As far as the neighborhood, I did extensive research to find out how often people move in and out of that neighborhood because I was concerned about the low income housing that was down the street. I agree with that gentleman, I looked up every single property to find out how many years people had lived there. Nobody had moved out in the last nine years, so I felt that it was a safe environment for my daughter. My intention was to take my daughter out of a multi-family loud environment with a lot of distractions because she needs her sleep. If she doesn’t sleep she can’t take care of the children. I looked for over two years for a piece of property that I could afford to put her. And this was listed as a single family home with an in-law apartment, just so you know. I did not know that it required a variance. After I purchased the property I went to City Hall and asked for a tax break because of the deplorable condition of the property and I got it. Nothing was said at that time. I’ve cleaned up the yard, I’ve cleaned up the house, I had maintenance people come in to fix the shrubbery and the retaining wall. I’ve had hand rails put in to make sure that all of the safety guidelines are met. There is a fenced in yard for the children, the house looks extremely better when the other people lived there. NS – Does the caretaker have hours, like a set schedule? I noticed that you said that whenever she needs something she calls them. Implying that the person isn’t physically there. Mrs. Sullivan – She doesn’t require 24 hour care at this time. Unfortunately this is the type if disease that is just going to deteriorate as time goes on. As time goes on she is going to require more care, that person is probably not going to be the person for her and I will have to replace him with someone else or have some other services brought in. Deb Phillips – The is increasingly going to get more service intensive, so the goal is to have Stephanie remain in this home as long as she can with her children as normal a family as possible. MM – Could you elaborate on the first year? PL – The first year she did not live there. I live almost directly across the street from her. MM – What makes you come to that conclusion? PL – Because she was not there and would only show up to cut the grass or something, she did not live there. In fact she told me that she lived in Lunenburg. MM – During that time, to the best of your knowledge, was there someone living in the accessory apartment? PL – Yes PL – If she wants to keep it for a caretaker, break it through, it says it’s a seven room house. Make it a seven room house and the caretaker can have a bedroom there if they have to be there. She said that the caretaker works and that he is not there half of the time. It was supposed to be converted to a single family house when it was sold. It was never done. Deb Phillips – That’s not true, what the lady said. There is no requirement that the structure be physically restored. The apartment can stay there, it can’t be rented. You could allow your college kids or friends or relatives, you could have anybody stay there. The issue is that it is being rented and it has to be renewed every five years. There is no requirement in the ordinance or in the permit that the structure be physically removed or put back to what it was before. MM – We would usually put that in as a condition. Deb Phillips – Well it’s not. VP – We talked about that earlier this evening, putting it into the standard conditions for accessory apartments. And adding it to the affidavit. What the plan would be to restore the property. JM – Before we never has that as a standard condition that the before the property is sold it’s to go back to a single family. Deb Phillips – I haven’t even looked at the plan that was submitted in 2005. What it looked like before or how that would be imposed now because it was not provided. JM – You have to reapply for it, that’s why they are here now. VP – They have to reapply every five years for the Special Permit. JB – What I would like to know is that is the ancillary apartment attached to the house, do you need to go outside the apartment to get to the inside of the house or is there an entrance back and forth interior to the apartment? Deb Phillips – My understanding is that it is over the garage and inside the house you can get to the apartment into the house. You can get into the apartment by going through the garage as well. JB – I understand Deb Phillips – It is a true accessory apartment constructed according to the plans that were approved in 2005. I admit that I haven’t personally looked at them but I did verify that it was JB – I have a hard time with this caregiver who in my estimation is not a qualified individual. He is just somebody who is renting the apartment. That is all he is, he is just a renter. Deb Phillips – The qualifications are to do physical work, you have to lift so many pounds, you have to be capable of shoveling. JB – There is no documentation showing that to me. There is nothing here that says this individual is in this position because he has these certain qualification to facilitate actions for the disabled person. What I see now, is that he lives there and every time I need him I call and he comes over. It just doesn’t sit like a real caregiver. Deb Phillips – If you would like something else please tell me what it is. You sit as a quasi judicial body, you make findings of fact. I can make a representation to you as an officer of the court that this young man is physically capable of doing the things that are required. If you want more, I don’t know what you want. Would you like an affidavit from him? JB – How does that make him a caregiver? Deb Phillips – Because she can’t do those things due to her physical condition. He is providing those services, it’s the same as an elderly person who can’t do it and would have a caretaker living there. What’s the difference between this young woman who has a degenerative disease and my 88 year old mother who needs a walker and has a lot of physical services? It’s really the same thing. MM – So, the unit is rented by somebody that is providing service but not medical or physical care. Deb Phillips – Not medical care, it’s like home health care, you come and do the laundry, bring in the newspaper it’s that kind of care. It is in that world, it is simply a live-in person rather than somebody that comes multiple times a day. VP – What is the square footage of the apartment? Deb Phillips – The garage is 26 x 26 that would be the gross square footage. The proposed plan for the apartment is also 26 x 26 which is? VP – That comes to 676 sq. ft. NS – And he pays $550.00 a month in rent? Mrs. Sullivan – That includes everything except his phone. VP – Is there anything else before we close and deliberate. Deb Phillips – I did do a proposed findings, you can take it or not take it (Exhibit #2). Close for deliberations It is a request for a Variance which is a variance from our typical Special Permit requirements of the accessory apartments and then we want to determine whether or not we want to issue an accessory apartment. I think the Variance request should come first. I think we are specifically discuss that. I’m going to start off saying whether or not the person occupying the 676 sq. ft. for $550.00 is also there to supply services. Clearly the petitioner represents that it the case and the abutters object to that. I am particularly persuaded by the petitioner at this point and time that this is a necessary element for services. That’s where I am at and I just want to get the rest of the Boards opinion. JB – I think that we should table this for 30 days and bring this Federal Housing Petition to our City Counsel (Atty. Mark Goldstein) and see what he has to say about whether or not a reasonable accommodation would be for an accessory apartment to be used in the way this one is being used. VP – I think you could raise another question as to whether or not it’s the owner of the property or it is to the tenant. What do you think? 30 days? MM – Ok NS – Sure JM – I’m definitely in favor of that, it’s too hard of a decision. I’m trying to process this, I realize sympathize with the daughter trying to keep her family together. I think it’s a very commendable thing, we just want to make sure everything is properly done and also want to respect the abutters. I think that this is really something we need to put some thought into. JB – If we really don’t make sure and really stretch into this the people in the back can take our decision and run it up to another court. The Housing Court, so we might as well make sure that we are on solid footing before we make a decision one way or another. NS – No comment MM – Are we in deliberation? VP – We are in deliberation. MM – Obviously the circumstance is very unique and would behoove ourselves to say it’s not heartfelt. We knew these accessory apartments were going to be a struggle when we started to do them about ten years ago. What I am trying to decipher is ultimately can this support be provided whether this person lives onsite or not. VP – That is what my issue is. MM – I’m looking at a medical standpoint verses the need for somebody to come and do chores around the house. There is no concrete proof but I have three abutters here saying that things were not as they should by all along. I can’t not commend you for what you have done. But, I have to look at the by-laws, the intent for 181.34, we have to look at the Variance. Again, I’m just trying to look at this and say, my personal feeling right now by everything presented is from what I’ve heard, and what has been brought and the comments that have been made it doesn’t sound like from the beginning of this purchase that things have been adhered to. It’s the buyer beware, it’s not our responsibility to monitor and look at situations that have happened and how we got here. I’m not confident that if I voted in favor of the Variance and the facts that were presented that things aren’t going to change. I’m definitely having a struggle with this and I’m looking at it saying that the support can be provided whether the person lives onsite or not. Maybe that support can be provided if it is converted back to a single family home. If we’re looking for some time I am ok with that. VP – Does anyone have any objection if the petitioner provides additional information in writing addressing our concerns to Atty. Phillips? All- No objection JB – I still want to check with Atty. Goldstein. VP – Would you like to address those? Deb Phillips – Would that include factual information? Would that involve reopening the hearing? VP – That’s what I was going to do anyway. Deb Phillips – I didn’t know if you were to be inclined if we presented factual information. I’m confident about the law and I have no problem. The Assistant City Solicitor is well aware of this application and has already been provided with a copy of the petition. You’ll have no problem if you want a written opinion from him. VP – I think what I have said is that I am having a hard time being persuaded that we have a caretaker there. I think that that was echoed. Deb Phillips – Do you need more medical information? I don’t really want to get into HIPPA. VP – No JB – I believe 100% that the woman is disabled. VP – An identification of the services he provides. JB – I have a problem that the caregiver was introduced as the boyfriend. Deb Phillips - Not for purposes now because it’s too late but I would suggest that nobody was sworn in here tonight. VP – That’s true. JB – We don’t do that. Deb Phillips – I know this Board doesn’t but maybe sometimes it’s a good idea. VP – Ok JM – We are not meeting in August, it will have to be in September. Deb Phillips – I understand that you don’t meet in August. The Building Commissioner has agreed not to enforce his letter because she made her application. JB – There’s really no hurry as they are currently using it as they want to anyway. MM – Do you want a suspension of the clock? VP – Yes Deb Phillips – I’m concerned about September 8th, we have a wedding in Maine. MM – We can do October if you like. Deb Phillips – You only meet once a month? JB –Yes VP – I believe there are certain time frames in order for us to receive a petition and make a decision. In order for us to get this opinion while I’m waiting for additional information to come in, if you have any additional information put it in writing. Nothing that has already been said, something new. Then you may be able to do so. PL – Do we come back to the next meeting in October? VP – You are more than welcome to do so. It is an open and public meeting. MM – A lot of this is hearsay there doesn’t seem to be any contractual agreement for the renter or any contractual agreement for the services provided also. Everything is pretty open ended. VP – We will continue this until October 13th @ 8:00PM. MM – Motion on ZBA-2015-10 for continuance to October 13, 2015 @ 8:00PM. JM – Seconded Vote – 6-0 8:15PM ZBA-2015-11 Scott & Edye Morrissey 612 Williams Road Request for a Special Permit under 181.34 for elderly parents to occupy an existing accessory apartment located at 612 Williams Road in the RR District at S6/20/B VP – Co-Chair – Is Mr. Morrissey here? VP – Mr. Morrissey is not in attendance. I am going to take a motion to continue to Sept 8, 2015 @ 8:45PM and send a letter to the petitioner. MM – Motion to continue ZBA-2015-11 to September 8, 2015 @ 8:45PM. VP – Seconded Vote – 6-0 8:30PM ZBA-2015-12 Scott & Norene Smith 83 England Avenue Request for a Special Permit under 181.34 for elderly parents to occupy an existing accessory apartment located at 83 England Avenue in the residential A-2 District at 88/70/0 LM – Chair – Please tell us about your petition. Norene Smith – My Mom is still living there, my Dad has passed. The only change we have made is a removable wheelchair ramp. MM – When were you granted the original Special Permit? Norene Smith – In 2005. MM – this is your second renewal? Norene Smith – Yes it is. Those Seeking Information: None Those in Favor: None Those Opposed: None LM – Chair – If you have nothing else to add at this time we will hear from the Board members. Close for deliberations JM – No questions right now, I think I’m all set. MM – I’m good thank you. JB – I’m good. NS – I’m all set. VP – I was in favor the last time it was before the Board and I am I favor again tonight. LM – Chair – I also am in favor of it I just wanted to make sure that everything is in the packet. MM – Standard conditions for accessory apartments apply. VP - Motion to continue ZBA-2015-12 to APPROVE the application based on standard conditions. MM – Seconded Vote 6-0 8:45PM ZBA-2015-13 Thomas & Marilyn Worthley 1333 Ashby State Road Request for a Variance to construct an addition that is closer to the side lot lines than allowed by City of Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance 181.414. The proposed deck will leave less than the required 25ft. distance to the side property line at 1333 Ashby State Road located in the Residential RR district at S2/50/0 LM – Chair – Please state your name for the record and tell us about your petition. We are Thomas and Marilyn Worthley and we are looking to put on a 16 x 20 Great Room on the side of the house and we will be approx. 5 or 6 ft. short of the required 25 ft. from the side lot line. LM – Chair – What will the façade be like? TW – It will match the current house, one story. LM – Chair – It’s just a Great Room and not for any secondary use of anyone else? TW – No, just living room area. LM – Chair – Will it be a full foundation TW – It will be a 4 ft. crawl space. LM – Chair – Everything will tie in and look the same as the rest of the house? TW – Yes, it will have the same siding and will be the same color. LM – Chair – Do you have anything else to add at this point? TW – Not that I can think of. Those Seeking Information: None Those in Favor: None Those Opposed: None Open to Board NS – I went by and looked at the property it is close to the edge of town, it’s fenced in and it is a wooded area. There is nothing close to your property. TW – To the right there is probably about 30 ft. of woods. VP – No questions. JM – I’m good. MM – How close are you to the abutter on the right? TW – Probably about 80 to 100 ft. I believe there is a lot in between. MM – And your lot is long and narrow. TW – Yes, it’s very long. MM – It’s 93 ft. wide but you have 500 ft. of depth. TW – The property in back is cut off with a brook. MM – How close is the brook to the house? TW – It’s way back at least 60 ft. MM – There is a certain criteria you need to meet for a Variance, I’m just trying to walk you through it. It’s probably best that it doesn’t go to the rear. TW – It’s stopping right at the back of the house. You wouldn’t want to put it to the left because? TW – Because of the layout of the house. MW - The kitchen is on this side and I want the new family room open to the kitchen. MM – And the driveway is on that side, so that would be disruptive. Do you have city water? TW – It’s city water but it is sceptic. MM – Where is your septic located? TW – It’s behind the house that’s why we cannot build out to the back. MM – Based on all the things we’ve talked about, this is the most appropriate and has the least impact is to put it in this location. JB - I don’t see a problem with it. It’s not really impacting his neighbors at all. LM – Chair – I too went to the property and I don’t see any problems with it. I would like to find out from our members if there are any conditions or concerns. MW – We don’t want to move but it is too small. Especially for the holidays. LM – Chair – We are going to close and deliberate, we won’t be taking any other information. Close for deliberations NS & VP – In favor of the petition MM – Based on the question that I asked it meets the criteria for a Variance and I would be in favor. JB – I would be in favor JM – I am also in favor. MM - Motion on ZBA-2015-13 to GRANT the Variance as requested with relief for a 5 ft. set-back JB – Seconded Vote 6-0 9:00PM ZBA-2014-17 IC Federal Credit Union-Mike Patenaude 276 Bemis Road Review of a Variance under §181.5363 to construct a two (2) sided electronic reader board sign in the Central Business District 111/1/Lot B which are prohibited in all zoning districts per §181.5363 LM – Chair – Please state your name for the record and tell us how things are going. Mike Patenaude of Poyant Sign and Phil Richards from IC Credit Union. MP – Things are going very well we have been utilizing the sign for about a year. PR – It actually has brought in a lot of business. We do surveys regularly through email and people tell us that they hear about different things products and services through the sign. We actually have two signs. One in Fitchburg, one in Leominster and we are actually installing one at a new property in Worcester, it’s working out very well. Part of the conditions were to do public service announcements as well and we have been doing that. We have an example if you would like to see that. These are some of the public service announcements (Exhibit #1). When we are contacted by people we try to provide that service to them. We are doing time as well and we are meeting all of the conditions as stipulated. LM – Chair – Are you able to stay within the guidelines of the D.O.T.? MP – Absolutely, no problem whatsoever. LM – Chair - Do you have anything to add at this time? Those Seeking Information: None Those in Favor: None Those Opposed: None Open to the Board VP – Are any of those conditions unnecessarily restrictive as to your use of the sign? PR – Not at all. JM – I’m fine. MM – All is good. JB – No problem NS – I’m good LM – Chair – I am also in favor Close and deliberate VP – I am in favor. Do you think we should have another review on this? MM – I wouldn’t. Not this particular applicant. JM – I am in favor, no new conditions. P – Strike the review from the conditions. MM - Motion on ZBA-2014-17 to APPROVE the review and strike the condition for any further review. JB – Seconded Vote 6-0 9:15PM ZBA-2011-04 William & Heather Gleason 0 Airport Road Review of a Special Permit granted in 2011 to operate a landscaping business located at 0 Airport Road in the Industrial District at 142/1/A LM – Chair – I believe you were on our agenda last month. HG – Yes, and I neglected to put it on my calendar. LM – Chair – Please tell us where we are in regards to the property. WG – Pretty much the same. LM – Chair – In what regard? WG – What do you want to know? LM – Chair – What your intentions are. WG – we’re still planning to put up a building. We started looking at them. LM – Chair – What is your timeline? It doesn’t look so good right now. I went by as recently as a week ago. I don’t think it looks I order, there are still trucks there. For a landscaping business I would think that you would want it to look better, that’s just my opinion. VP – That’s why the case has always been kept on review. We’ve been hoping to get the façade if you will of that property on Airport Road. WG - The façade was the best façade in Fitchburg for a while. Like the last time we were here, people just don’t give a damn about other people’s property. The whole thing was sodded and all those plants against the fence, all the trees I put in on both sides have been destroyed. LM – Chair – It doesn’t look kept, weed whacked and such. WG – That’s not my property. LM – Chair – Around the fence, and all that area. WG – That belongs to Penske. We only have 40 ft. of frontage. We landscaped that area for free and they didn’t maintain it. MM – Can I ask you a question, we’ve had a lot of businesses on Airport Road recently? Do you think all the trash on Airport Road is from the trash trucks are coming to the area. WG – No, it is just people tossing it. MM – I travel all over New England and unfortunately this is not uncommon. That’s why I like a little feedback, we have a lot of these recycle type places and transfer stations in that area. WG – I don’t think it’s that at all. JM – I think that the transfer stations send people out to clean up pretty regularly. Those Seeking Information: None Those in Favor: None Those Opposed: None Open to the Board VP – What were the original condition? Was there a landscaping condition? LM – Chair – There are things on the property that have for storage and things like that, it is still the intention to build the building? WG – Once we get the building that trailer is gone. LM – Chair – What is the time frame that you think would be realistic for doing this building? VP – One year after you retire? WG – I’ll go with that. LM – Chair – I have the original findings and conditions. VP – What is the cheapest way to improve the front and then also easily maintain it? WG – It’s all leveled out now, it’s just bare dirt. My intention is to pave the entrance with pavers. I have the pavers I just don’t have the time. I am not going to keep maintaining the Penske property, where our sign is, that’s our property line. I can put some flowers and plants there. Then come next spring it will look the same. Because the plows push all of the snow there. LM – Chair – Can’t you put up a sign that says “do not plow”? WG – It doesn’t work like that. You can’t blame them for last winter, there was just too much snow. MM – I know the fence is pretty close to the street. WG – About 20 ft. MM – That distance between the actual pavement and your fence, how much of that is City and how much of that is yours? WG – I don’t know. We just put the fence there because it’s in line with the Penske fence. JM – Could you have a berm put there? WG – I wish we could put a berm, because all of the street water runs down the driveway and washes everything out. It’s like a river. With the pavers I was going to granite edging along it. LM – Chair – How long would it be before you could do that? WG – A paver driveway? LM – Chair – Yes WG – I could plant that thing in the next few weeks. VP – What I am interested in is just the drive by. Just what I see when I drive by, the first 10-20 ft. WG – Everything that is dirt there on the left side I could plant that whole thing. I think I own maybe 8 ft. at the most from where the driveway ends. Penske owns all that tall grass, none of that is mine. LM – Chair – I’m more concerned more about just the front of your entrance to your fence. That 20 ft. between the pavement and the road to the front and then your fenced in area. I think it would give a much better presentation of your business. Don’t you agree? WG – I don’t agree with that, but we can landscape it. All of our work is word of mouth. I’ll plant that whole thing and make it look nice. VP – I don’t want you to do something just for the sake of satisfying us, I want you to do something you can easily maintain. WG – I’ll plant a bunch of shrubs, flowers won’t work there. MM – How many ft. from the fence towards the street do you think would be effective where it wouldn’t die every year? WG – I would probably put 8 ft. of stone, previously there was stone there. But, it’s all buried under sand now. MM – What’s the Board looking for a 3 or 4 ft. buffer? VP – I’m just looking for something for whatever is easiest for him to successfully maintain. Obviously it’s like cleaning the beach, he is going to have to do it almost every year. WG – You would need 8 ft. of stone from the street and the rest might survive. The plants won’t take the salt. We could put 8 ft. of trap rock and behind that plant and mulch. VP – That was our original concept, we want to see that small stretch beautified. WG – Between the jail and landscaping it’s hard to find the time. LM – Chair – I think we’re reasonable and that we have been reasonable. We need to put some time frames and go from there. VP – Let’s put and end of September time frame on it. LM – Chair – I would like something quicker only because this is the time when you want it to look good. It’s summer, it’s fall. JM – There’s a small window of opportunity. LM – Chair – Any questions, comments or conditions? JB – I think the easiest thing is like he said. Just throw the stone I there and put some plants. LM – Chair – We would like to see in your words, trap rock, and some plantings done by the end of August. VP – I would put the review out a couple of years, my inclination is to start putting our reviews out further. LM – Chair – We hadn’t had them on a review we called them back in. Weren’t we granted it at one time, but we didn’t file it with the Registry of Deeds and that’s why we’re back here now? LM – Chair – No, you’re here because someone went by and thought the property didn’t look good so we called you back in. We have the opportunity to do that at any time. Then once you were here we decided because it was just a commitment of things that you were going to do that we would put you on a review. MM – You not filing may have a negative impact on both of you if you are trying to maybe finance something related to the business. HG – We thought it had something to do with the permit. LM – Chair – If you don’t have it filed that you may need that on record. MM – It makes it concrete that you have the permit and have followed the due process. VP – To the filing issue, where they have another review coming up and where they have reviews coming up I wouldn’t spend the money to file anything at the Registry of Deeds until they go to sell the property or get some financing. Otherwise, they are going to be incurring $125.00 cost every time we have a review. Because they have to refile at the Registry of Deeds. MM – Every time a condition is changed? VP – Every time you have a review. If you take a document and it says that you have a Special Permit that is going to be reviewed in 6 months then they have to refile with the changes. MM – Do you think our petitioners are doing that? VP – No, we were just instructing them to file, file, file. At some point and time if we were to give them a finalized with no further review on it they could go and file it. Until then it’s just between them and us anyways. LM – Chair – At this point I think we have an agreement on conditions and we will close. VP – I would like to make a motion to approve the review and add the condition that they would renew their efforts for beautification and with some completion of trap rock and plantings by August 30, 2015. And that it be in front of the specific entry into the fenced area from the road I front of the gate. Strike the review and change it to October13, 2015 @ 8:15. LM – Chair – Any other conditions? All - No VP - Motion on ZBA-2011-04 to APPROVE the review and add the condition that they would renew their efforts for beautification and with some completion of trap rock and plantings by August 30, 2015. And that it be in front of the specific entry into the fenced area from the road I front of the gate. Strike the review and change it to October13, 2015 @ 8:15. MM – Seconded Vote – 6-0 MISCELLANEOUS (Continued) ZBA – 2015 – 04 Michael Longley 402 Broad Street Special Permit under section §181.313.D.5 to conduct a construction, excavation, and demolition business and store construction vehicles in the Industrial District at 28/10/Lot A - 402 Broad Street LM – Chair – Let’s continue deliberations from earlier this evening. VP – There was a comment made earlier this evening that there had been a visit and this gentleman seemed motivated and sincere, I found that when he first came in here to be indifferent, not concerned about the downtown City if Fitchburg. I know he comes from out of town and he just thought that this place has been a dump as far back as he could remember. He seems to have no problem with this place continuing to be a dump. That’s your petitioner on that case. And that’s another reason that I am not in favor of that petition. JB – This guy parked his vehicles on the corner of John Fitch Highway and Boutelle St. It’s an open field, I don’t know who owns it but that is where he parked his trucks for years. JM – Wasn’t on the corner by the car wash? JB – Yes JM – That’s Townsend St. JM – I just can’t believe that he didn’t do anything. VP – From what I saw in the first hearing I can absolutely believe it. JM – He said that he was all set with the fence thing and that it was all set. Didn’t he say that? And he has somebody from the fence company. LM – Chair – Mike and I went together and we met with him I think he seemed somewhat sincere. I talked with two of the petitioners that were here tonight and they go to Horizon and they said that they thought that he has made progress over there. NS – I have been on Broad St. a fair amount and I have seen people over there puttering about doing things, nothing major. I have seen guys sweeping. MM – I talked to one of the abutting business and he said he was optimistic that the Board will do the right thing. He told me that the vehicles are out in the middle of the road in the morning and he is loading them up. They are also doing truck repair in the front. He said, if you look around there is a cement tube on one side and there is a lot of debris. My thought was to put a long list of conditions on and a short period to get them done and see if that works. VP – The only reason I would support it is, how else can we order him to do anything? MM – And just keep that review period going for a year or so until we get the place where we want it to be. NS – He has to move the logs and stuff. JM – The owner of Horizon is willing to work with him. Mike has the machinery and half of the battle is having the right equipment, and he does have it. LM – Chair – What he told Michael and I is that he was going to tear up the driveway from the fence, square off the fence and he already has a quote from Sevigney. He is on the list. That front area where the planting is and all of the way over to where the Cefalo Bros. use to be, all the way over, the whole front is going to be a new grade of paving within 3 weeks. VP – Maybe I’m jaded, but that place is a dump. LM – Chair – It is a dump. I want it to be better. I think it would be a better effort if we try to put some conditions. JM – What are the options? VP – Your options are, leave it the way that it is and Mr. Longley will have to sell it to somebody that can actually put it to a lawful use and that way you are actually going to get a place that is cleaned up. The other option is that we will put out a list of conditions and the Gleason’s will continue to show up, it won’t be done. They will have made a little progress, and you will always have a dump on Broad St. right next to Crocker Field. That’s what I think it is. MM – What is this property zoned? LO – Duffy refers to it in his letter as Industrial. VP – Councilors should be worried about the zoning on that property. That’s Crocker Field and they have it zoned Industrial. LM – Chair – Again, the conditions we discussed earlier were as follows. 1. One month review – September 8, 2015 @ 9:00 PM 2. No outside storage of construction materials / debris / hazardous materials 3. No vehicle repairs to be done outside of the building 4. No storage of unregistered vehicles outside 5. No parking and or loading on the street 6. Landscape and plantings to shield vehicles along the fence (for example –Arborvitaes) 7. Landscape island surrounding sign in front of the building 8. Enclosed area to be graded with regrind 9. Parking lot in front to be paved 10. Removal of the no parking signs on the telephone poles 11. Remove all barbed wire to front of the property and repair the remaining barbed wire 12. Remove all debris stored on the property 13. Repair all fence panels  14. All vehicles or heavy equipment to be stored at the rear of the fenced in area in an orderly fashion 15. Right of Way – Remove logs / Replace with locked gates on both ends 16. Additional conditions may be added at the September 8, 2015 review @ 9:00PM JB & JM – I don’t believe a permit should be issued until he has met with the conditions listed. JM – If he starts making a real sincere effort and starts doing a lot of these things then I will be ok with it. He hasn’t done anything so far as I am concerned. JB – He came in here with an attitude. VP – First impressions are everything and he couldn’t have been bothered. The other though that I had was that if he has one no vote he could see that it wasn’t necessarily clear sailing. VP – Motion on 2015-04 to approve the Special Permit based on the conditions stated LM – Chair – Wait a minute, are we talking about the special permit not to be granted until these conditions are completed. VP – Do you want that? NS – All the conditions? MM – I don’t, that’s a lot of conditions LM – Chair – We need to give him some time. MM – I’m ok till September and if 50% of that is done I would give him another six months. LM – Chair – That property has been a dump for 20 years. Don’t we want to see it get better in six months to a year? JB – Then what are you going to do? Take his Special Permit away. MM – We have revoked several of them this year. VP – Motion on 2015-04 to approve the Special Permit based on the conditions #1 thru #16 as stated. MM – Seconded Vote – 5-1 (Mr. Pusateri) ADJOURNMENT LM – Chair – Motion to adjourn MM - Seconded