Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder ZONING Drive – Suite 108 Fitchburg, Massachusetts MINUTES September 8, 2015 ATTENDANCE: Lauren McNamara -Chair, Vincent Pusateri Co-Chair, Joseph Byrne, Joseph Marrama, Michael McLaughlin, Nicholas Squailia, James Concannon 1. Call to Order LM Pledge of Allegiance: All 2. Communications: Attendance: LM,VP, JM, MM, JB, NS, JC 3. Hearings 6:45PM Miscellaneous Commissioner Robert Lanciani – Atty. Mark Goldstein 1 & 3 Prospect Street, 18 Mechanic Street LM-Chair – The Board asked the Commissioner and Atty. Goldstein join us this evening to answer a few questions regarding 1 & 3 Prospect Street. We had put out a request to all of the departments relative to 1 & 3 Prospect Street and asked if they could respond to us and tell us where they stood on the property and why things happened the way they did. I’m sure you are familiar with everything that I am talking about. Did you read our decision? MG – I did read some of the minutes and the decision. MM – Did you read the letter we sent asking for some follow-up so that we could make sure that things were completed at the property? The folks that are living in the property have been very cooperative with the Board. At the meeting they said that they would be willing to do some of these things we talked about so we could find out how we got to where we got. We really don’t want it to happen again. MG – I’m not sure I can answer that question. I’m not sure where to go with that. I think the issue is that the Building Inspector made a ruling that it was a two-family and somebody filed a request to have it overturned. As a Board your authority is basically to concur or not concur with the Building Commissioner. If you feel that his ruling is correct and it is a two-family and that you want to ensure that it is two-family and that part of your decision is that they need to do certain things to make sure that it looks like a two-family and as long as they comply with those issues you would feel more comfortable ruling in favor of the Commissioners decision. LM – I just want to make sure that we are on the same page. These are two individual condominium units. We do not want each side to become individual two- families. MG – The whole structure is a two-family, like a duplex. If someone challenges the Building Commissioners ruling that it is a two-family they certainly have that right to go in front of this Board. Then if this Board makes a decision that they agree with the Commissioner but we would like to have a couple of things done at the property to ensure that we feel comfortable that it is a two-family and the owner is willing to do that, that’s fine. In essence, do you have the authority to have the property owner do something? I don’t know. Your decision is either that it is a two-family or it’s not a two-family. LM – We could have overturned the Commissioners decision, we decided to uphold it with some conditions. We do that with a lot of cases. MG – If the property owner is ok with that then that’s fine. LM – We would like those conditions recorded with the Registry of Deeds so that if it sells in the future that if someone does a title search it they will find that this is a two-family with conditions. RL – I don’t have any money or authority to file that. You said that you were going to talk to John Barrett and see whether the Law Department was going to create a document and file it. LM – Our group at one time had a small amount of budget to be able to go places, do things if it has to come out of that then I would like to see it done. MG – Usually it is the petitioner that records it. We could find in the legal budget what it would cost. LM – The only thing that we want is that it is not to be sold as a two family home individually. As long as the Commissioner defines that all of our concerns have been met then we would like those two items filed. He would need to go there and just make sure that on 1 Prospect that the door between the first and second floor is unlocked so that it is a free flowing household. We also asked that the meters on the side be taken down. The commissioner was given our written decision and once he finds that all of the conditions have been met then we would like those items recorded. MM – Basically the Boards observation is that the unit on the right is being used as a two family. But they are doing it and getting away with it legally, what they are doing is they have locks on each individual unit up and down. Supposedly there is access for both tenants to get through the building. We all know this. We have asked some questions of the Building Commissioner first time around. What we are asking is that there was an issue with the left side too where they put in an illegal small apartment that she was renting to somebody. Then she was told that it was ok there was a second kitchen. This has been a mess. What we are trying to do as volunteers is to put in as much effort as we can into this is to say that we have the parties here and they say that they are willing to do these things and we would like somebody to go and verify that these things are done. We’ve written letters to multiple departments and we are getting no response out of anybody. We’re sitting here after putting many hours into volunteer work to try to make your city better and get no response or poor response it is very frustrating. Some things need to change. What we are trying to do is the best that we can because we are seeing one thing after another in this city. There are inconsistences with decision making. There are inconsistences with zoning determinations and enforcement. There is no enforcement when we ask for it. LM – There is no sense in this Board making decisions or setting conditions if there is not going to be any enforcement. MM – We are trying to do as much as we can in our purview to say “these are our findings, we need some help and have somebody to go in a say yes that what the residents and the property owner said is true. If this can’t be done someone has to tell us that. MG – I believe that the Commissioner has made an attempt to go look at this building. RL – There has been no change to the electrical and I would like to ask Joe Marrama, what would it cost someone to take a four meter panel off the house and put a two meter panel on? JM – It’s just a matter of disconnecting one panel and putting another, probably a day’s work. Lm & JB – Why are you worried about the cost? JB – We asked them to do it and they said they are willing to do it. RL – But, they haven’t done it. Nobody has pulled any permits. LM – Commissioner, have you gone to the property and spoken with then individually and said to them “we have expectations of these items being completed per the decision w/ conditions issued by the Zoning Board”. RL - No I haven’t. MG – You’ve spoken to owners haven’t you? RL – No, I have not called Mr. Pennetti to ask permission to go into the building. There have been no permits pulled, I have been by multiple times and have not seen any work being done electrical or otherwise. I discussed this with the Board back when the decision first came through. LM – But, it has lingered on for so long. RL – It has. But the people in that apartment told the building department that we could not go in without a search warrant. LM – I understand, they have let me in to view the whole property. RL – I understand that. They have the right to do that. If you request from them written permission allowing me the right of entry I will go. LM – They sat here at the last meeting and said that they were willing to do all of these items and that they were willing to allow you to come into the property. RL – And they haven’t done the items. LM – You were here at the meeting that evening. They spoke, you spoke, you had to leave early but they said that they were willing to allow you in. I think you need to follow-up at this point and I don’t think you will have a problem getting into the property. MM – Do you think that the best course of action would be to send a letter to the property owner’s to say “As per the Zoning Case ZBA 2014-19 the determination and the findings of the Board I have been asked to inspect for the following, and is there a time when we can meet to go through the checklist that the Zoning Board has provided to me so we can bring this to closure”. RL – That will get me in the house, but it will not address all of your issues. MM – What do you mean “all of our issues”? RL – You have issues about where the driveways are. MM – That is separate, we’re not here for that tonight. RL – That was part of what you wanted me to look at. I’m going to look at the parking. Who is going to provide the certified plot plan to me so I know where the bounds and edges of the parking lot actually are? The drawings that they had aren’t certified. MM – The department that issued the approval to allow them to put the driveway in should have that. RL – The driveway that is there pre- dates all that. Someone will have to hire a surveyor to go on the property and survey the parking lot. MM – How did the driveway get put in without a plan showing where it was going to go? RL – At the time the original driveway was put in, it wasn’t required. LM – I would suggest that you send a note such as MM just dictated and ask for permission to come in and view the issues that are the major pivotal points. This would be the exterior siding, the electrical, making sure that each side is a single family unit and that they free flow so there are no locked doors between them. RL – I have been in one and it is free flow. LM – Do we know that as of today? RL – I have been in the Saalbach apartment, they have allowed me access. I have been through that apartment. That meets the building code. If I go into 1 and there is a lock on that door but the people, the people have a lease. There are four of them renting the whole condo. LM – Mr. Pennetti said that he was willing to put another door in there that did not have a locking mechanism. If he follows what the decision was and you go back and inspect and it isn’t taken care of then he is in violation. MM – The people on the first floor should be able to get into the second floor, and the people on the second floor should be able to get into the first floor. If they can’t, then it is being used as a two-family. MG - That’s right, and wouldn’t that be a violation of zoning? RL – I would have to look at it further but it would probably, but I would have to look at the Supreme Court ruling on what’s allowed because of the non-traditional families and that case. MM – Is that a state law? Was that a ruling or was that just that one case? MG – It was Clark University was renting to a whole bunch of students and the issue was whether it was a lodging house or not? It had a lot of issues on it and it went all of the way to the Supreme Court. There is a lot in that case, I’m not sure that we are there yet. I’ll work with Duffy on that whether that case is pertinent or not. LM – I think we should crawl before we walk. MG – I agree with you. Once Duffy is able to get in there and find that it is free flowing and that people can go back and forth with no locked doors. Because, once you show a locked door it looks like either a lodging house or two-family. Lodging houses, people lock their doors they have individual bedrooms and they lock their doors. That’s different than a whole bunch of college kids renting an apartment. There’s a whole distinction there. MM – What we worry about from our side of the fence is that you have used that non-traditional family thing. What we don’t want to see in the City is “you’ve got a massive single family home, just put in two or three kitchens as long as everybody lives there as one big happy family we’re ok”. You know what that’s going to turn Fitchburg into, it already has. LM – Quite frankly we all live here, I don’t know what towns you live in. RL – I will make an effort on that. I will also make an effort try to cut down on the number of illegal signs throughout the City, and work on that and generate some more revenue for the City and try to straighten a lot of things out. But, I have one person to do this “me”. I have one other building inspector, he does not do zoning things and does not go to court. In the past I had myself and two inspectors. LM – You need help and we understand that. MG – Duffy and I spent two days in court last week on significant demolition types of cases and having landlords who are horrifically beyond the zoning and building code issues. I have worked with Duffy and let me tell you, he needs five people. He could use at least another three or four people. The Board of Health could use another person or two. My feeling is that they are so overworked, they should have given you the courtesy to get back to you on this case, and there is no question about that. JB – What I seem to be hearing you say is that even though we sit here and case by case from 7 o’clock till 12o’clock sometimes make determinations on peoples request to us and we make certain conditions that in order to get these requests done and permitted they have to fulfill these requests. We have no enforcement, so it’s “why waste our time”? Is that what I hear? MG – Let me say this, I don’t believe you’re doing is wasting your time. I think the issue really is that you are doing really good work and you are trying to make sure that people are doing what they are supposed to be during. It’s just that Building and Board of Health are just lacking the personnel to do the enforcement for your Board or other issues that are coming up. Again, Duffy had four or five people working for him at one time and he is now down to two. LM – What can we expect from today forward? RL – Most of the decisions that you render, if there are conditions that are put in your decision before a Building Permit is issued we try to make sure that the conditions that you put in your decision are met before we issue a Building Permit. Once the Building Permit is issued and the people are in the building, trying to have someone that is just monitoring ZBA cases to see if there is compliance I don’t have it and it doesn’t happen. I wish that in a perfect would that I had the resources. When we get complaints from neighbors, abutters, concerned citizens about things where a decision has been made and something has been issued, we try to take action. Unfortunately, some of the action we try to take such as, if I order a cease and desist I have to give them a reasonable amount of time to cease and desist. I then have to reinvestigate. MM – What is a reasonable amount of time? RL – Two weeks, it takes a couple of days to get out there, they need ten days to act and then I need time to look at it and time to do something. If they haven’t complied, the next step is to talk to Mark and it has to be brought into court. It will takes weeks to months to get into court and try to get something enforced. That’s the reality of what happens. JB – People come before the Board and we say that we will give them a permit, we put on the conditions, and we don’t issue the permit until the conditions ae met? MM – That’s almost at the point we’re at. What we’ve been doing is putting people on a short rope where have a list of conditions and we have them come back in thirty days, then in sixty days. I know a case for instance on 129 Sanborn Street from seven years ago where it is being operated without any of the conditions ever being met. I went through it with Mike Gallant, I brought it to the Building Department, and you were supposed to follow up on it. I have filled out more complaint forms for lack of holding up of conditions and have never gotten a response on. LM – We got to see a course of action on 1 and 3 Prospect Street. This has been going on almost a year now. RL – It has been a long time. I will continue to work with Mark. MG – It’s an important point. Do you have a list of properties that need to be inspected? LM – Everything that we have done. MG – Do you have a list of six or seven or ten? How long is this list? LM – It’s gone on for years now. VP – Can we set up some kind of mechanism such as a tickler in the calendar that six months after the decision somebody will stop over there and check it out? MG – Duffy needs more people. But, yes there should be a mechanism that is adopted then this would be part of the routine that when the inspectors go out and do their inspections they would refer to it. JB – I love this City. I have been here well over forty years and when I drive down a road that is supposed to be a state highway and I see curb cuts put in where I know that nobody can get a car turned around to come back out onto the state highway there’s not enough room to even put a car on this curb cut. Still it goes on and nobody says anything, it just gets frustrating and I feel that I am just wasting my time here. VP – Does the Building Commissioner have an idea of what he would need to be able to do these inspections? RL – For building code enforcement a city this size should have five building inspectors, a planning reviewer, if you were to through in the zoning enforcement which is part of building there should be a couple more. In summary, 5 inspectors, 1 plan reviewer, 2 zoning enforcement officers. VP – My follow- up question is how is it that the Board of Health has access to the housing court so quickly? MG – Me VP – But, the Building Department is more cumbersome. Is it the process is more cumbersome, what is the difference between the two departments? The Board of Health can go from issuing an order to a landlord to being in the Housing Court within 30 – 45 days. They do receive orders from Housing Court Judges to back up their orders while the Building Department seems like a more difficult prospect. RL – There is a problem within the Department and that problem is lack of resources. MG – The Board of Health has four inspectors while the Building Department has one inspector that cannot go to court. Therefore I am down to zero inspectors that can go to court. MG – Right now I am tackling the demolition of buildings like the ones on West Street that aren’t getting demolished. VP – There was some citation to a general concept that could give us a measuring stick ass to what is an appropriate amount of enforcement or personnel staffing. Duffy, do you remember that? RL – I didn’t cite anything specific. The national standard that inspectors and courts and the profession is upheld. It is one inspector for every eight thousand residents for building code enforcement. We have 40,000 residents which would make it five inspectors. That is not covering zoning. When you add zoning in you have to add a couple more. MM – What does Leominster have? RL – They have a Commissioner and one Inspector. MM – And we have a Commissioner and one inspector. RL – They are not going to court either. MG - They are not really in court, they don’t have the urban problems that we have. VP – With these resources would you be able to do the inspections to the level that we are asking for follow-up on zoning decisions? RL – I believe so. Right now I am trying to answer forms of intent that came in and requests a zoning determination that came in the beginning of August. When I had two inspectors I was able to do it within ten to twelve days. I am now telling people to come back in a month and see where they are on the list. Building inspections have to be done within a certain time frame by state law. Building permit applications have to be done within a certain time frame by state law. Zoning requests have no statute that I have found that gives me a time frame. LM – You are overwhelmed. RL – I am working 45 hours a week and I am being paid for 35. I am sinking. But, I am trying to do what I can. LM – Let’s go back to the actual case. Can you send a letter and then if you think two weeks is a reasonable time. RL – I will ask the property owner for permission to get into the house. LM – And you would expect that all of the items that the Board set be completed by the time you visit. Do you think that it is reasonable to ask that you come back and report to us next month or the month after? RL – I don’t think that all of the work you are requesting is ever going to be done. But, I will be happy to come back and report. LM – Our expectations are that they will fulfill all of the items on the list because they agreed to them when they were here. MM – At least if we get the report and you say that 50% of this isn’t done we can invite them in again. JM – She did offer to take the meters off and fix the siding. LM – My point is that can we say in two months you can come back and you will have sent the letter, have given them time and inspected? RL – I will report back to the Board. MG – My thought is that you should invite the owners back in tow months as well. LM – Why should we? VP – We don’t want them to come in if they have complied. MM – I don’t know if this is appropriate, but we would be willing to go along on the call. Whatever it takes because you were not here for the whole meeting. We are willing to go above and beyond and help out. If it’s appropriate or allowable we would be happy to. LM – In regards to 1 & 3 Prospect we are all in agreement that in two months we will come back and discuss this. Is there a reason why 18 Mechanic did not have your signature on the document for the application? RL – I was never asked for it. The people at 18 Mechanic Street went to the DPW, got a permit for the curb cut and put the driveway in. LM – That was apparently approved through the Engineering Department. RL – Yes, it probably was. LM – Aren’t you supposed to be the final signature? RL – I am supposed to be a signatory on a document before it is issued. The last one that is the person who issues it which I believe is the DPW. It didn’t go through every party. LM – These are the things that we are trying to correct through the process so these thing don’t happen again. RL – I don’t disagree with you. These things shouldn’t happen again. But, I do disagree that 18 Mechanic Street should be part of a decision that is written on 1 & 3 Prospect Street. LM – Just so you know what was happing, is that 18 Mechanic Street was driving thru 1 & 3 Prospect to exit out onto Prospect Street and that’s why it became an issue and came up as an item. We had ten to fifteen people here complaining about this happening. We had to address it, because we had to address our constituent’s. MM – You can’t disagree that when that driveway was put in that it was a disaster. Nobody can even tell us if it’s on the correct property or whether it encroaches on somebody else’s property. RL – I don’t disagree with you at all. MM – Then it happened again on 30 Mechanic Street a couple of weeks ago. RL – Thirty Mechanic Street applied, I denied the application and sent them to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has the right to issue, which they apparently did. VP – Did they need a zoning variance on a dimensional requirement? RL – No, the way the zoning ordinance is written in the City shows that they can take two paths. They chose to go to the Planning Board because the Planning Board gave it to them. VP – Is there currently a zoning violation at 18 Mechanic Street because the driveway encroaches into the three foot setback? RL – I don’t know because no one has ever given me a certified plot plan. A plan to show where the lot lines are relative to the driveway. MG – If you went to court you would need the certified plot plan. MM – How do you get a driveway put in if you can’t present a plan that shows where you can put the driveway? RL – You would have to ask the DPW, because it never came through all of the departments. I believe that the DPW is well aware that this was a disaster and they corrected it. When 30 Mechanic Street came in they took a different path and it was denied by zoning, by me. I denied it, then because of our zoning ordinance they had the option to come to you or the Planning Board. It is in two different places in the ordinances. They felt that the Planning Board was the path to take. I think that part of what th reason they chose to go to the Planning Board was because of 18 Mechanic Street. So, they chose where to go for a Board. I can’t fix the Zoning Ordinances. I think they should be looked at. They saw what happened at 18 Mechanic and they went to the Planning Board to see what would happen. LM – We will meet again in two months to follow-up on 1 & 3 Prospect Street. Do we want a motion on this? VP – My motion would be to table 18 Mechanic Street and to continue the review for two months (November 10, 2015) for input on 1 & 3 Prospect Street. Seconded – Joe Byrne Vote – 7-0 To table 18 Mechanic Street and to continue the review for two months (November 10, 12015) for input on 1 & 3 Prospect Street. 7:00 PM ZBA-2012-22 Fitchburg Public Schools 111 Goodrich Street Joe Richardson FPS - Review of a Variance under §181.5363 to construct an Electronic Reader Board Sign located in the Residential B District at 71/42/0 JR – At present there isn’t a sign at 111 Goodrich Street. However, we do have a signed contract for one. The sign is in production and I have drawings and pictures to distribute to the Board. LM – What is the expectation to have the sign in place? JR – We applied for the permits with the Building Department last week. The sign is in production. They told us that they it would be done in six to eight weeks. That is where we are at. LM – Would you like to come back with the finished product in November or December? JR – November should be enough time. Now that things have moved on to the vendor I am more confident in the time line. I am in a place where I can say that. The sign is in production and they want to execute it as soon as they can so they can get paid. LM – We will extend time again. There is significant progress this time. VP – Motion to continue ZBA 2012-22 to November 10, 2015 pending a report by Paul McNamara from the Police Department – Public Safety and have him come over to the property and make sure that all of these dimensions are met. And also make sure and review everything from the beginning of this permit that everything has been followed. JB – Seconded Vote – 7-0 7:15 PM ZBA-2012-23 Fitchburg Public Schools 140 Arn How Farm Road Review of a Variance under §181.5363 to replace an existing sign with a new Electronic Reader Board Sign located in the Rural Residential District at 324/1/0 Joe Richardson FPS – Just for the record, it is the same contract, the same vendor and the same process. LM – So, we will also come back on November 10, 2015 to review the finished product. JR – The Superintendent has put the High School as the priority because it is so visible. This will be the first sign to be installed. JM – They are just going to replace the sign at the High School. JR – Yes, they will be replacing the physical sign that is between the pillars. The contract stipulates that the pillars that are there ae to stay in place and used for the new sign. JC – Is the new sign going to be attached at the same height as the old sign? JR – I believe so. That detail might be in the drawing. JC – There is a line of sight issue with the original sign. JR – I believed that has been addressed, we have been pretty tight with what has come from this Board and what has been adhered to by the contractors. It’s all detailed in the drawings of the signs. LM – Nothing should have changed along the way. JR – Since I have come on board, and I have come to you we have all been on the same page. VP – That prior sign was allowed by a Special Permit? LM – Yes VP – Are the conditions of that Special Permit specifically a part of this Special Permit or should we amend any conditions? LM – He doesn’t know of any changes, we can’t amend what we don’t know. VP – I don’t think that we should amend, as JC has pointed out that we previously went through a line of sight issue on the original sign. Now we have issued a new Special Permit for a new electronic sign, the old Special Permit should be incorporated with this new Special Permit. JR – Just looking at the information I have and you look at the pictures of the current sign and where it’s placed. This current sign is above the top of the pillars. The new sign as proposed is level with the pillars which drops everything down. I don’t know what the line of sight issue was but if it was too high, it has been lowered. JC – The sign was low enough that it was blocking people trying to pull out. JR – If there is an issue, I ask that you let me know now. I would need to contact the vendor. LM – Can you get the documents? JR – I have all of the documents. LM – I think that you need to go through them. We are not approving this tonight, we are not approving any changes. What we wanted to see was hopefully something close to a finished product. We’re not saying that we are changing anything that we have made for conditions. So, I think that you should go through the conditions and be sure that you have met them. JR – The conditions that came from this Board are what was used for Procurement to procure the signs. VP – What conditions? The ones from the first sign or the ones from this sign? JR – Since this has started, with this sign. We have gone by the most recent ZBA documentation, procurement and the school department. The last thing we want is to procure a sign that doesn’t meet what came out of here. JC – I would suggest that if we simply look at this photo of the proposed sign which has been super imposed on the existing photographs in our original photograph you can clearly see a car turning out of the High School and turning right. In the newly proposed sign the sign almost entirely obliterates the car pulling out. So you have a driver potentially coming down that will never see that car and you’ve got a driver pulling out that will never see the oncoming traffic. That is an issue. VP – I’d like to make my statement a little more clearly. We have issued two Special Permits on this particular sign. First when it was a non-electronic sign and more recently on this electronic sign. LM - As far as I know we have only issued one Special Permit. Which was the electronic sign. VP – This first sign did not require a permit from the Zoning Board? LM – I may have, back when the school was built. JR – I can go out and take measurements of where it is now. They have the measurements here for the new sign, it’s 120 in. to the top of the pillars, and the size of the sign. I can report back. LM – With both signs, could you call Paul McNamara from the Police Department – Public Safety and have him come over to the property and make sure that all of these dimensions are met. And also make sure and review everything from the beginning of this permit that everything has been followed and that it is not relative to something previous? JC – Are the two signs of similar dimension? JR – I want to say that they are. I would have to go back and see what you had in the past. Like I said, since I’ve been here we’ve go by what exactly has come from this Board and Procurement. If there is something different, it’s not a big deal for me to tell the installer not to put it at three feet, put it at four feet in between these pillars. But, I need to know. I will measure what’s there and I will speak to Paul. JC – I think that if we locate that sign based on the base of the sign on the pillars we will have that same window for the sign that will allow people to see. JR – So the base of the proposed sign, the space from the ground to base of that sign as it sits between the pillars is what you are looking for? VP – At minimum it should be the same. It should not be any lower. JR – I would think that you would want more space under the sign so as to see what is coming. VP – That’s correct. MM – I want to be flexible for what’s best for the design and what works best for the school. But, keeping the safety issue in mind. JR – How would you like the feedback from Paul? Would you like a written report, e-mail? MM – Some kind of written communication. LM – Send it to Lois and she can send it to all members of the Board. VP – I would like to make a finding first that we discussed specifically a line of sight issue and the height of the sign. Based on that discussion we decided to continue the review until the meeting on November 10, 2015. JB – Seconded Vote 7-0 VP – Motion to continue ZBA 2012-23 to November 10, 2015 pending report by Paul McNamara from the Police Department – Public Safety and have him come over to the property and make sure that all of these dimensions are met. And also make sure and review everything from the beginning of this permit that everything has been followed. JB – Seconded Vote – 7-0 LM – Motion to amend language for ZBA 2012-22 – 111 Goodrich Street VP – That is the same motion without the finding regarding the height of the sign. JB – Seconded Vote – 7-0 7:30PM ZBA-2015-07 Scott Hamel 1097 Water Street Use variance §181.313.C.22 to operate a machine shop in the detached garage in the Residential B District at 148/11/0 LM – We asked the petitioner to reach out, we wanted to try and get the Commissioner so we could figure out where we are concerning this petition and the best way to process it. Mr. Hamel, please give us an update if you could. SH - The only thing that I really know is that it was set up as a home based business. I did want to see if I could turn it into an LLC so I could hire somebody. LM – I’m going to ask the Commissioner to comment on the status of this process for us. RL – This gentleman started out with a home based occupation which I granted by rite working all by himself. He wants to live the American dream and grow his business. But, it is zoned residential. He appealed and asked for a finding. It’s not allowed, I denied the Use Variance. Having employees takes it away from a home based occupation to a business. I believed that I explained to the gentleman that I have to deny his request and that he has the right to appeal to the ZBA. The ordinance does not allow a Use Variance in a residential area. Any decision I make whether it be good, bad, favorable or unfavorable, people have the right to appeal to the ZBA. Unfortunately by zoning ordinance and state law you cannot grant him the relief he is seeking. I believed I offered another path to take which would be to seek a zoning change in that neighborhood. He lives on a very short strip of Water Street with only five or six houses. There are businesses across the street, business above and below. VP – My question is that on the home occupation isn’t that by Special Permit to deviant from that to allow an employee. RL – For multiple employees, no. But, for one employee working for him but not at the residence is allowed. I don’t know if you could grant a Special Permit for one employee. VP – How many employees did you want? SH – Just one would be fine. VP - He can have a Special Permit if he complies with everything in the Ordinance and he can have one additional employee and perhaps a sign. RL – My understanding is that the Board could allow a Special Permit for the one employee without having to re-advertise the entire thing. Ad it is the secondary building that is being used for the home occupation. VP- The secondary building is part of his home. If it was an unattached garage that would be part of his home. MM – Is it an unattached garage? SH – Yes it is. MM – I just want to make sure that we are looking at it correctly. RL – I think that what he is trying to do is a great thing. I believe that the Board can grant a Special Permit for one employee and set the conditions that you feel appropriate. LM – If we were to say that we were to give you one additional employee at one time, would that work for you? CH – Yes, that would be awesome. VP – Do you need a sign? SH – That would be nice. I don’t want to push it. LM – I don’t see anyone in the audience that is in support or in opposition for the record. Unless anyone has anything else to add we will close and deliberate. SH – If I were to ask for a sign, are there any guidelines? LM – Yes, there are guidelines. RL – He would apply for a building permit for the sign. LM – Are there any other questions? Once we close and deliberate we won’t be taking any other questions. SH – I don’t think so. LM – Does anyone have any negative feedback or are we all on the same page? JB – I have no problems VP – I think it’s excellent. MM – How far does this residential district extend to the left and the right? It is definitely a mixed use. LM – We are closed. Would you like to reopen? MM – If someone has an answer I’d like to hear it. LM – We will reopen. Commissioner can you answer that? RL – I believe there is one house to the right and three houses to your left and there is a business that is for sale across the street that has been vacant for more than two years so they will lose their grandfathered right. Then there is a ball field on Abbott Ave., the building that has a beauty salon and vacuum sales. Across the street is an auto sales company. MM - This is a tough one, I can see that there is enough favorable to allow it. I want to see him grow and be successful. LM – We can set some conditions. VP – The conditions are that it has to comply with 181.332. The only other condition is to have a sign that complies with section 181.53. And permit him to have one additional employee at any given time. LM – Anything else we should look at for conditions? VP – Why don’t we put it on for a review any if we get any complaints about hours of operation or noise we can address that at that time. LM- There has not been one neighbor that has come to either meeting, that’s a good thing. VP – Let’s put it o for review. No customer visits and a very modest sign. MM – Just a comment, we are granting a lesser permit for this type of case do you think it might be advantageous to show the applicant what conditions are. VP – He can review that with the building department. VP – I make a motion to amend the application to apply for a Special Permit and a motion to approve the Special Permit. LM – Let’s do the first motion. VP – Motion to amend ZBA 2015-07 to a request for a Special Permit. JB – Seconded Vote – 7-0 To GRANT the Motion to amend ZBA 2015-07 to request a Special Permit. VP – Motion on ZBA 2015-07 to APPROVE the Special Permit for a home occupation permitting one additional employee at any given time and a sign pursuant to 181.53. Also, to be in compliance with the criteria of 181.332. Put the matter on for a six month review. JB – Seconded Vote – 7-0 To GRANT a Special Permit for a home occupation permitting one additional employee at any given time and a sign pursuant to 181.53. Also, to be in compliance with the criteria of 181.332. Put the matter on for a six month review. 7:45PM ZBA-2014-09 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 LM – I don’t see the petitioner here for petition ZBA 2014-09, Mr. Raul Lopez for 0 Dwight Street. Do we have an update on that? LO – The petitioner has not contacted the Board since the April meeting and at that point he did not own the property. MM – I ran into the current property owner Mr. Joseph Brogna and he did say that there were some legal issues that still needed to be resolved. I did go by there tonight he painted the building and it looks great. JM – He did a nice job. He cleaned up across the parking lot all of the trees and he doesn’t even own it yet. LM – I would like to make a request that you send the petitioner a letter and then put it on for review after discussing it with him and also speak with Mr. Brogna. Is everybody fine with that? LM – Motion that the Board send a letter to Mr. Lopez and discuss an appropriate review date. JB – Seconded Vote 7-0 To send a letter to Mr. Lopez and discuss an appropriate review date. 8:00PM ZBA-2014-23 El Houari Haddar 16 Maryland Avenue Review of a Special Permit under 181.33 to operate a livery business at 16 Maryland Avenue located in the RA-2 Residential district 101/50/0 LM – The petitioner is not in attendance. VP – I will make a motion to continue for one month, we will write him a letter, he has missed his meeting. MM – Motion on ZBA 2014-23 to continue for one month. JB – Seconded Vote 7-0 To continue for one month (October 13, 2015). 8:15PM ZBA-2014-25 JMAC Distribution LLC 134 A Crawford Street Review of a Special Permit under §181.313.D.6 to store vehicles on a temporary basis for a towing company in the Industrial District at 114R/1/0 – 134A CRAWFORD STREET LM - LM – The petitioner is not in attendance. MM – I will make a motion to continue for one month, we will write him a letter, he has missed his meeting. MM – Motion to continue ZBA 2014-25 for one month to (October 13, 2015). JB – Seconded Vote 7-0 To continue ZBA 2014-25 for one month to (October 13, 2015). Continue ZBA 2014-25 for one month to (October 13, 2015). 8:30PM ZBA-2014-26 Paul Amanatidis 1109 – 1151 Main Street Review of a Special Permit under §181.313C.12 to operate an automobile repair service. In the Central Business District at 17/64/0 LM – Please tell us about your property and what the status is. PA – I just received a call Friday and the water issue will be resolved tomorrow. The DPW is coming to fix it. Hopefully the restaurant will be starting this week. I hired a company and signed a contract with them to do the restaurant. I hope to start pulling permits this coming week. LM – After the water issue is taken care of you will be able to work on the driveway. PA – Yes, after the water issue is taken care of we can start on the driveway and the tank. LM – Did they think that was going to be a quick remedy? PA – I don’t know. I have been waiting for almost a year and a half now. Better late than never, I’m happy they are coming tomorrow. In Favor - None Opposed - None Seeking Information – None Open to Board: JB – I notice that there are unregistered vehicles on the property. I also have seen an 18 wheeler truck there. PA. – A friend of mine asked as a favor if he could leave the truck there for a few days, it is gone now. JM – I went by and everything looks good. The store is running good. VP – I’m satisfied. JC – I’m good, no questions. MM – I went into the convenience store, the place is beautiful. What’s the city doing? PA – They already know what the problem is. They already put a camera through. I think for some reason they didn’t want to take responsibility. I told them that if they didn’t want to do it, let me do it. I went over there to get the ok and was told that I couldn’t do it because it doesn’t belong to me. There is an easement, it’s theirs. MM – The reason I asked is that I am on the Water Commission and there is a meeting tomorrow. LM – If you don’t see someone tomorrow morning give Michael a call. MM – Talk to us about your timelines. You have the convenience up and running. Now you’re going to have somebody come in and work on the restaurant. PA – I was told it would take two months to finish it. MM – Let’s talk about the auto repair. PA – There is really not much work left. Most of the inside is almost done. We have to do the oil separator, most of it is just painting. I think it will be done in two months. LM – The thing is that maybe your paving might not be done in two months. MM – How about some of the conditions for the site work like the concrete sidewalks, the curbing and all that. PA – Once the paving would be done it would be part of it. MM – Have you talked to the city about how the curbing gets done? PA – That will be the contractors’ job not mine. LM – Let’s put this on for review in November, if he has to get his paving done. VP – That sounds good. LM – Do we want some new findings? Findings A. Petitioner has opened the convenience store. B. The timeline for the paving is still dependent on the repair of the culvert. C. The City has represented that they will be on site September 9th to work on the culvert repairs. D. This Board will contact the Commissioner of Public Works and the Water Department if the meeting does not happen as planned. Mike McLaughlin will be the contact person if needed. LM – Motion to continue ZBA 2014-26 to November 10, 2015. MM- Seconded Vote 7-0 To continue ZBA 2014-26 to November 10, 2015. 8:45PM ZBA-2015-11 Scott & Edye Morrisey 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 ZBA-2015-11 LM – Please tell the Board all about your petition, we will open it up to the audience and then we will open it up to the board and we will make some decisions. SM – Things are the same as it has been since 2005 when w were granted the original Special Permit. My father-in-law has since passed away, my mother-in-law still occupies the apartment and she is seventy-five. Everything is going pretty well, no complaints. It’s a nice arrangement. I don’t think there is anything else I can add to that. LM – I think we were looking to make one additional change to out Ordinance. We were talking about that when to used was completed we would request a plan for the property to return to a single family. Do you find that that would be an easy proposition? SM – Not necessarily easy. If you look at the plans, when we built the house it was built it specifically for this arrangement. We looked at the codes and by-laws, everything that was written at that time. In essence you almost have a two-family home. It wasn’t changed or modified we built the structure per the guidelines. For us, you have our home, basically another house plan that I took and modified then attached it to the home. To return it would leave me with a big space, what am I going to do with it? LM – That’s the concern for us. SM – The concern comes down to at some point when we sell the house that somebody is going to want it. In my instance we have a variety of friends and family that may be able to use it. I think that would still fit the guidelines here. Not like you’re renting it to gain income. But at some point for my wife and I you have somebody else living in the home. Other than that it is too big a house. LM – So, at this point everything is status quo. SC – That is correct. MM – Do we have a current affidavit? LM – Yes we do. In Favor - None Opposed - None Seeking Information – None Open to the Board – VP – I have no questions. JC – No questions at this time. MM – No questions JM – No questions JB – No questions Before we close and deliberate, do you anything else to add? SM – Just as a point, my suggestion as somebody that lives in the community that the City consider someone who has such an apartment allow them to make it a legal apartment. VP – That’s not going to happen. You would see each house turn into a two-family home one at a time. MM – You had built and designed it before you came before this Board. The intent of the Special Permit is to for example. Mom has a huge home and is too big. You want to keep Mom home as long as possible. You decide to move in and share a piece of the home to take care of Mom. It is a temporary arrangement, although it may last five or ten years. The flip side of it is you have a great big home, more than you really need and you decide to bring your parents in and take care of them, that’s kind of the intent. The problem we have, and we have seen it a lot in Fitchburg and it is a lot of the reasons Fitchburg is the way it is. We have an over concentration of single-family homes that were illegally converted. What is hard for us is, you come before us, give us a great presentation, we know what you have done and now the house goes up for sale and somebody looks at it but can’t afford it and thinks that if they take this in-law apartment and use it as a rental. Now the neighbor sees all kinds of cars, traffic and problems. SM– In the community I agree a thousand percent, but as a taxpayer, people are doing it anyway. So as a taxpayer I would rather see the City get taxes from a legal apartment. Hypothetically, I take my kitchen cabinets out, maybe, or I say that it’s back to the way it was. You guys go away. I’m 2,000 ft. off the road and I put the cabinets back in, and I have two more care that show up there every day. And the City is not getting any taxes. Vs. Now you can rezone it as a taxable apartment. VP – Now in your chain of title, you want to sell it to me, I go to buy it and in your chain of title it says that this is not to be sold as a two-family property. SM – Right, I can’t advertise it as a two family. LM – Your neighbors don’t want it, VP – We are looking at protecting everyone. SM – The other part of the problem is that unless you want to buy an old run down structure you can’t buy a two-family lot anywhere. MM – Yes there is. That;s why we have this Board. You can come here for relief. SM – That the next thing I’m looking at now. To build a two- family somewhere else, don’t have to work as often and have some extra income that is legal fron a rental apartment. I haven’t seen in nice areas the lots available for such use. LM – There are still some nice existing duplex homes out there. MM – We want to protect the fact that we allowed this some relief for that to happen. But, then everybody else that kind of bought around you is expectation is that they made an investment in a single-family home in a neighborhood that is zoned that and keep it that way. If we allow it to be converted to a two-family you would have four or five people that are not going to agree with that. SM – I agree. It has worked out for me very nicely. MM – We have found some abusive cases. SM – And again I see that. LM – Was this recorded at the Registry of Deeds like you were supposed to? SM – Yes I did. It was recorded. But I will triple check that with my Lawyer that handled that. Close and deliberate – VP – I approve it and I would add as a condition that the petitioner when he would come to renew the Special Permit in five years would be prepared to discuss a plan to bring the property in compliance with the current zoning. JC – I would be in agreement with that. LM – Before we get to you Michael I would like to add that we have asked the petitioner to show proof of the recording. We should start doing that with all of the renewals when we send out the applications for renewal to ask them to attach it to the application. MM – I’m ok with that. JM – I’m good. NS – I agree. MM- Motion on ZBA 2015-11 to GRANT the Special Permit under 181.34 with conditions as discussed and all previous original conditions. JB – Seconded Vote 7-0 To GRANT the Special Permit under 181.34 with conditions as discussed and all previous original conditions. 9:00PM ZBA-2015-04 Michael Longley 402 Broad Street Review of a 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 – Tell us what’s going on.ML – I’m doing everything I’m supposed to be doing. I wanted to do it anyway. I did the paving; I’m fixing the fence and working on the back of the building fixing all of the holes. LM – How about I go through the list of conditions with you? ML – Let’s go through the list. Conditions Status of each condition 1. Review – September 8, 2015 @ 9:00 PM - Completed 2. No outside storage of construction materials / debris / hazardous materials - ML – I have no outside storage. 3. No vehicle repairs to be done outside of the building – ML – I am not doing any outside repairs. 4. No storage of unregistered vehicles outside – ML – All vehicles are registered 5. No parking and or loading on the street – ML - No 6. Landscape and plantings to shield vehicles along the fence (for example –Arborvitaes) ML – I’m working on that I have a lead on some Arborvitaes. 7. Landscape island surrounding sign in front of the building – ML – Will probably so the same time as the Arborvitaes. 8. Enclosed area to be graded with regrind ML - Completed 9. Parking lot in front to be paved ML - Completed 10. Removal of the no parking signs on the telephone poles – ML – Trying to get in touch with Paul McNamara to discuss making that area a no parking zone. MM – You should call your Ward Councilor Joel Kaddy to put in a petition that would need to go to Council. 11. Remove all barbed wire to front of the property and repair the remaining barbed wire ML – When I finish the fence I’ll square that away. 12. Remove all debris stored on the property ML - Completed 13. Repair all fence panels ML – Working on it. 14. All vehicles or heavy equipment to be stored at the rear of the fenced in area in an orderly fashion ML - Completed 15. Right of Way – Remove logs / Replace with locked gates on both ends ML – Working on that also. 16. Additional conditions may be added at the September 8, 2015 review @ 9:00PM MM – We can revisit this on the next review. LM – Do you have anything else to add at this time before we start deliberation? ML – No Close and deliberate – VP – I think what we have is a non-conforming property. Now we have a contractors’ yard that is not a compatible use for that area. It’s supposed to be industrial use only; we have once again contorted ourselves to deviate from our zoning to so that we could accommodate the petitioner. It’s going to become a contractors’ yard. As hard as we work on it in the beginning of the project it’s going to deteriorate and be a contractors’ yard and not the same as an industrial use. That is why I voted against it originally. Particularly because it abuts Crocker Field and there was opposition to it. The conditions have not been complied with at this time. This is one of those times where it will go through and we will have a contractors’ yard there. That’s my position on it. No offense to this gentleman, he has done a great job trying to meet these conditions. JC – I’m happy with the progress that has been made and would like to see everything get completed and have that place dressed up. MM – I’m good with either a thirty or sixty day review. I would like to make sure we get a sunset clause added as condition #17. JM – I was disappointed at first when I went by and saw no progress. I went by today and talked to Mike and I appreciate the work he has done. He has done a lot of work in a short time. If he meets all of the requirements and keeps it cleaned up I’m fine with that. We strongly advise that you take pride in your business and take pride in your property. NS – I think Mr. Longley has demonstrated a desire to operate a clean business in the City especially in such a short period of time considering what he was dealing with to what the property looks like now. I would also like bring to light that he has been doing all this while operating his business. This is the time of year he makes the majority of his money for the entire year and to make all of these improvements in such a short amount of time I think demonstrates that he is really trying to be a good neighbor. LM - I also feel that you have demonstrated to the Board that you are doing a great job. VP – Motion on ZBA 2015-04 to APPROVE the review and add condition #17 – Sunset Clause and the next review will be November 10, 2015. MM – Seconded Vote 6-1 To APPROVE the review and add condition #17 – Sunset Clause the next review will be November 10, 2015. 9:15PM ZBA-2008-33 Fidelity Co-Op Bank – Matt Wilbur 675 Main Street Request for review of conditions for Variance granted on January 3, 2009 to erect an electronic message center sign to replace the existing “time & temperature” sign for Fidelity Bank located in the Central Business District at 42/18/0 – 675 Main Street LM – Please state your names for the record. I am Matt Wilbur the marketing coordinator for Fidelity Bank and I have with me Ben Barr the regional manager of Watchfire Signs and Andy Serrato that will be doing the work. MW – As you know we have an electronic sign at our Main Street branch right now. It’s not working at the present, we have always kept up the maintenance and repairs. At this point we feel it is not prudent to have it repaired and instead it should be replaced. We would like to switch out the monochrome sign that we have now for an RBG color sign. It will sit in the same cabinet, the structure is going to remain the same. BB – We have a little presentation as far as a graphical format to show you what it is going to look like staying in that existing cabinet. VP – I believe we represent Fidelity Bank and will recuse myself. LM – For the record Attorney Pusateri has recused himself. BB – Being able to make the transition to color will make a big difference. The sign would be operated by Fidelity Bank and be operated in the same format as was originally requested. Watchfire has several signs in town with several clients in similar nature, the same size and operation. We are also doing some signs for the schools. The operation wouldn’t change, it would just simply be moving from one single color LED to a red, green and blue that will allow them to do pictorials, very simple, no video single frame. MW – As you know in the past we have been very active in the community advertising community events. AS – The only thing they are looking to change is condition #4 from monochrome to color. MW – The sign also has the capability to dim down by the time of day and the time of year. LM – Hours of operation? MW – Currently the sign has been operated 24-7, and we are hoping to do the same. We haven’t had any complaints. In Favor - None Opposed - None Seeking Information – None Open to the Board – JB – I’m fine with them. JM – You say it will be dimmed at night? MW – Yes, we dim it down to about 7% of the output at night. JM – I’m all set. NS – Can you say anything that would help alleviate any concerns of vandalism? Why isn’t the sign that is there now working? Was it damaged? MW – It doesn’t appear that it was vandalized. It appears that over time the components just failed. MW – I believe the brightness of the sign itself discourages vandalism. The materials the signs are made of now can withstand much more. I cover all of New England; we don’t see much vandalism with these signs. A camera is also something to think about. LM – Are you planning on a camera? MW – Absolutely, there might already be cameras in the location. I would have to speak with our facilities manager. I feel that it is something the Bank may already have, if not it is something we can do. JC I think it’s a fine upgrade and I don’t really have any issues with going to the full color. MM – You are ok with all of the original conditions except #4? MW – Yes, we actually recommend it. LM – When do you plan to have it in place and up and running? MW – As soon as we get the approval Andy can start production. LM – I would like to have it in place and running for a couple of months and then have a review. AS – It should be two months. LM – Then we should go four months and it will be up for awhile. We will close and deliberate, unless you have anything else to add. MW – No, thank you very much. Close and deliberate – JB – I’m fine with it and to change #4. LM – With regards to conditions we will have a review January 12, 2016. Also, strike #4 monochrome. MM – Conditions set forth on the original Variance ZBA 2008-33 will remain. We will be striking #4 and a condition that we will have a review January 12, 2016. MM – Motion on ZBA 2008-33 To Strike Condition #4 and add condition for a review on January 12, 2016. All other original conditions will remain the same. JB – Seconded Vote 6-0 To Strike Condition #4 and add condition for a review on January 12, 2016. All other original conditions will remain the same. 9:30PM ZBA-2015-14 St. Bernard’s Central Catholic High School 45 Harvard Street Request for a Variance under §181.5363 to replace an existing sign with a new Electronic Reader Board Sign located in the RB District at 84/89/0 LM – Karen, please come up and tell us about your petition. Karen – Basically, all we want to do is replace the existing sign with an electronic sign. I see there is a picture of it in your package. We don’t want it to be flashing. We just want to be able to tell the public what’s going on in the school, monochrome color. LM – For the record Joe Marrama has recused himself as he is an abutter. LM – So it is going in the same spot as the existing sign, it’s going to be monochrome, no flashing , video or any of that right? Karen – That’s right. Would you be willing to do public service announcements? Karen – Yes, if it’s a requirement. I’ll check with the Principal, there shouldn’t be a problem. In Favor - None Opposed - None Seeking Information – None Open to the Board – VP – So far I have no questions. JC – I’m ok with this I think that an upgrade on the existing sign is fine. MM – As you all know my struggles with these signs is the close proximity to residential homes. I don’t think people should pull their blinds to have these in their neighborhood. Obviously I see the need and St. Bernard’s is a good VP – St. Bernard’s is an important social structure in our City. JB – What hours are you going to run this sign? Karen – It hasn’t officially been decided. Probably during the day to whatever time you say we have to shut it down. I was thinking 9 or 10 P.M. MM – The sign will be one sided? Karen – Yes, the back of the sign will face the school. MM – Do you think you may have a need for an additional sign possibly at the recreation center? Karen – I don’t believe so. NS – I agree with Joe and everyone else concerning the time of operation. Other than that I think it’s great. LM – I am interested in going forward with the sign. We need to set some conditions similar to the other schools that have signs. MM – Do you have the size of the sign? Karen – I believe it is 57 x 98. LM – Is that the same size as the existing sign? Karen – No, it’s definitely larger, but would fit in that spot. MM – That’s a really big sign. LM – What is the size of the existing sign? Karen –m I don’t know what that is. I think the width is the same but the height is smaller. VP – Is the top part of the sign going to remain stagnant? Yes, it will have the St. Bernard’s logo. It will not be electronic. LM – Will it obstruct the line of sight for vehicles coming from Harvard St.? Karen – I think it’s pretty well set back. MM – Is the sign going to be at ground level? Karen – No, it will be raised a little bit. MM – How high? Karen – I’m npt positive. LM – Can we get something definite? MM – I’m looking favorably on this but we need you to come back with more definitive information. VP – We would like to see what your plan is. LM – Who is doing the sign for you? Karen - Add-A-Sign from Leominster. LM – He could probably give you all of that information. JC – I think it would be useful to get dimensions for both of the signs. We should also get a measurement of how far it is set back from the road. LM – When were you hoping to get the sign put together and in place? Karen – I was waiting for approval from the Board. JC - Are we interested in looking into any kind of things that would make the sign more vandal proof? LM – It might be a good idea if you have Tim come to the meeting. He could answer some of the technical questions. VP – I move to continue to October 13, 2015 @ 6:45 P.M. and would like to have Add-A-Sign in attendance. Chair and petitioner sign the extension of time. MM – Motion on ZBA 2015-14 To continue to October 13, 2015 @ 6:45 P.M. VP – Seconded Vote – 6-0 In favor to continue ZBA 2015-14 to October 13, 2015. Miscellaneous Review changes on Acc. Apt. Affidavit - Make additional changes per Board (see VP notes) 317 Fisher Road is non-responsive after two notices were sent to Mr. Bachant that the Special Permit has expired. LM – Will contact Mr. Bachant ADJOURNMENT LM – Chair – Motion to adjourn MM - Seconded