Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES October 11, 2016 Senior Center 1. Call to Order LM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. Communications LM ATTENDANCE: LM, MM, JB 3. Hearings AZ & NS 6:00PM ZBA-2016-05 Boris Sapozhnikov 265 SUMMER ST After two calls, no one is in attendance for this hearing; petitioner nor abutters. MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-05 to Continue the Review to November 22, 2016 at 7:15PM NS – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 Grant a Continuance 6:15PM ZBA2015-03 Gary Therrien 14 PUTNAM ST Gary Therrien stated that the business is doing well and that the sign has been good for business. All the conditions placed upon the Special Permit have been adhered to. The only neighbors are commercial properties and they are not detrimentally effected. LM – Correspondence from the Police Department was read at this time: This investigator had occasion to view the electronic message center both during daylight and nighttime hours and observed no notable adverse effects of the sign on drivers operating with the area adjacent to the sign location. No recommendations on improvements to the sign currently in use. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Support: None MM – Was not originally in favor of the sign, but am in favor of approving the review. MM – Motion on ZBA-2015-03 to Approve the Review striking Condition #7, adding a Sunset Clause. JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 Approve the Review with the following conditions: 1. Sign to maintained and kept in good working order 2. No flashing, blinking, scrolling or video 3. Petitioner to offer public service announcements 4. Not to be operated as a nuisance 5. Sign to meet D.O.T. standards including but not limited to not less than 3 seconds display 6. Placement as submitted by plan 7. Sunset Clause – Special Permit to expire/terminate upon the sale/transfer of the business from Gary Therrien at 14 Putnam St 6:30PM ZBA-2016-24 Hannah Wanjiku & Timothy Kihiko 160 PLYMOUTH ST Presentation given by Timothy Kihiko stating that the building has been vacant for 3 years. The first floor has 2 units and the second and third floor are single units with 4 bedrooms. He is looking to keep the building a 4-family and doing some interior remodeling. Most of the street is made up of multi-family buildings that do not have sufficient parking. Petitioner discussed his previous rehab work in other communities. LM – Will you be doing anything to the exterior? Mr. Kihiko – Not much, changing the windows and putting a new retaining wall made out of bricks. Those Seeing Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Support: None AZ – Can you speak to the architectural or other features that make this structure appropriate for rehabilitation? MM – Do you plan on doing any landscaping and beautification of the property? Mr. Kihiko – Will be adding gravel to the existing and will be replacing the retaining wall. MM – Back of the property has debris 5’ high. Mr. Kihiko – It is not mine, the debris was there. Does not want to do anything unless he can get the Special Permit. MM – Your parking plan does not show 9’ x 18.5’ parking spaces, and you cannot have a parking space in an easement. Your plan does not outline any true dimensions. You have no side or front yard. Do not want the sidewalk to become a parking lot. Just because this was used as a 4-family, does not mean it is appropriate for the lot. Would be more willing to look at this favorably as a 3 family and a review period. LM – After looking at the floor plans and having viewed the building, I believe this was originally a 3- family that was converted to a 4 at some point without permits. The layout is exactly the same on floor 2 and 3 and the first floor was cut to make the extra unit. Would not be in favor of a 4-family without proper parking with a single family home next door. Do you want to move forward with your request or would you want to change it to a 3-family. AZ – Would not be inclined to vote for a 4-family that does not meet the mandatory requirements. There is no way to make enough parking for a 4-family building on this property. LM – Correspondence from the Police Department: Upon inspection of the roadway it is this investigators recommendation that any permit be conditional upon off street parking made available for all occupants of the property. This section of roadway was observed to be near or at on street parking capacity and is comprised of several multifamily dwellings, all of whom will be competing for on street parking. The density of the neighborhood requires the ability of tenants to park in an off street location. Observing the shared driveway and small parking area located to the rear of 160 Plymouth St where this officer has previously towed abandoned vehicles the area is not adequate for a large number of vehicles. You can ask for a continuance, or move ahead with your request. What would you like to do? MM – In order for you to occupy this building, you will need approval from this Board. Mr. Kihiko requested to amend his petition for a 3-family dwelling. AZ – Motion on ZBA-2016-24 to Grant the petitioner Leave to Amend his request to a 3-family structure JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Grant Leave to Amend 2 Board and petitioner reviewed the plan again and he Board advised Mr. Kihiko that he will need to submit revised plans. Parking plan showing at least 6 parking spaces 9’ x 18.5’ and new floor plan showing the first floor to be identical to floors 2 and 3. Board also discussed the possibility of the units being 3 bedroom rather than 4 bedrooms with Mr. Kihiko. This was an attempt to come up with a balance in alleviating some of the density in this neighborhood. LM – We will continue the hearing to the November meeting if you think you can have your plans ready by then. You have heard the concerns of the Board, when you come back before us you will need a parking plan for 6 spaces with dimensions and a floor plan of the units. MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-24 to continue the hearing to November 22, 2016 at 7:30PM when petitioner will submit a revised parking plan and floor plans for a 3-unit dwelling. JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Grant a Continuance 6:45PM ZBA-2016-25 Denise Bourgeois 20 MAPLEWOOD DR Presentation given by Denise Bourgeois and Andre & Paul Bourgeois (brothers and contractors). Their parents live in Waltham and she wants them to be close so she can be there for them each day. Photos and plans were presented at this time to the Board showing the proposed roofline and addition to the existing home (Exhibit A). The addition will extend one foot beyond the existing fence. The addition will be 7’3’ beyond the existing 3-season room. She spoke to the neighbor and they agreed that it will not impact their view or space. Plan shows a seamless extension of the existing ranch home and will continue to look like a single family structure. The porch will be removed which is on a slab and the addition will have a full basement. It will be the same heating system and one electrical service upgraded to a 200amp service. The addition is 30’ x 26.6’ which is just under the 800 sq. ft. for an accessary apartment. The roof will be a new hip roof and it will also have new siding so everything will look the same. There is off street parking for 2 vehicles on an existing driveway on the addition side of the home. Her parents have one vehicle and one space for visitors. The variance request leaving 25’ from the front and and 5.9’ from the side. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Support: Attorney Bradley of 63 Fairmount Street. JB – I commend you for taking on this task. How will you convert this back to a single-family? Andre Bourgeois showed that by taking out the kitchen in the addition and making into a secondary family room it will be back to a single family with 2 full baths. NS – The closest abutter is through a wooded lot further up the hill and this addition will not interfere with their property. AZ – This request is of no detriment to the neighbors. LM – How long before you break ground and complete the project? Andre Bourgeois – As soon as we are over the appeal period we will begin and it will be completed in 3 months. LM – Will the construction debris be removed at completion of the project? Andre Bourgeois – Yes, we will have a dumpster on site that will be removed. LM – With respect to parking? Denise Bourgeois – The second driveway is existing and will not be changed. The addition will have the same heating system, electrical service, same roofline and siding as the existing structure. 3 MM – You are not adding a door to the front of the home? Andre Bourgeois – No, the entry will be through the breezeway for both. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: All Board members were in favor of the request with the standard conditions. MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-25 to Grant a Variance leaving 5.9’ to the side and 25.4’ to the front property lines. AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Grant Variance MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-25 to Grant a Special Permit for the Accessory Apartment with the standard conditions. AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: Grant Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. Property not to be sold or conveyed as a 2-family 2. Special Permit expires in 5 years and must be renewed prior to expiration 3. Special Permit will terminate upon the transfer of the property 4. Dwelling is to be owner occupied 5. Accessory Apartment is to be occupied by a relative of the owner 6. Upon the expiration of the Special Permit the petitioner will restore the property to single family use pursuant to the plan attached to the affidavit. Including any amendments by Zoning Board of Appeals. 7. In all other respects, use of the accessory apartment shall comply with §181.34 of the City of Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance 8. A Copy of this Special Permit shall be filed with a the Registry of Deeds 7:00PM ZBA-2016-26 Brett Usher & Silvia Calvillo 162 MARSHALL ST Presentation given by Attorney Bradley stating that the property was bought in June and is a non- conforming lot. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Support: None AZ – What feature makes this structure uniquely suited and appropriate for rehabilitation? Attorney Bradley – The house conforms architecturally and there is no cause for concerns in safety. It will improve the street and neighborhood by making it livable and beautiful. MM – Visited the property and the place is in pretty good shape The Police Dept. does have parking recommendations and concerns. The plan shows you are going to put a driveway on the side. Would like to see the designated parking space in the front green space instead. The neighborhood is starting to change and we are glad to have you be part of it. LM – Will this be owner occupied? Silvia Calvillo – Yes, we love Fitchburg and will be moving here from Ashburnham. AZ – The parking area in the rear is not large enough for a pick-up truck to maneuver. This may limit your ability to rent to certain tenants. 4 MM – Would like to put in condition for a 3’ setback in rear for parking and the space in front converted to green space. LM – Correspondence from the Police Department: Observing the roadway during the onsite inspection it is this investigators recommendation that the home have an adequate number of parking spaces for the tenants. The current neighborhood is comprised of several multifamily homes that would all be competing for on street parking. The roadway currently has a parking restriction on one side further reducing the available roadway space for on street parking. Therefore after investigation of this request the Police Department would recommend that any special permit be conditional upon proper off street parking for all tenants. AZ – In looking at the plan, is there any way you could widen the opening of the driveway larger than 6’? Mr. Usher – We could use some of the green space for that. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – This building is in excellent condition, needing minor repair and upgrades. Applicant have shown they are willing to improve the property and make it safe. MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-26 to Grant a Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. 3’ buffer in the rear of the lot for parking 2. Paved parking space shown on plan to be green space 3. Beginning of driveway to be 8’ not 6’per revised plan. (Exhibit B) AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT of a Special Permit with Conditions 7:15PM ZBA-2016-27 Ashley Owens & Jame Schwaldel 108 LEIGHTON ST Ashley Owens, architect, and Jame Schwadel both work for a firm in Chelsea. They bought this property to bring it back up for affordable housing. They will be taking off the front porch and an unsafe addition in the rear that had been built improperly on the dirt. The building is totally vacant and gutted. They have been working on clearing and cleaning up the property. If granted the Special Permit, they will be totally renovating the building. This property will be rented as a single-family dwelling. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Support: None AZ – What do you mean by affordable housing? Ms. Owens – Section 8 Housing. Parent(s) and 2-3 children renting the single-family. LM – Correspondence from the Police Department: The request to reinstate an abandoned building into a single family residence was investigated and it was observed that a large retaining wall in front of the home limits the available off street parking area for the home. The roadway currently has a no parking restriction on the easterly side of the roadway. Without the purchase of additional land it does not appear feasible that off street parking can be provided for this residence. MM – There are no homes on the opposite side of the street, so there will not be competition for on street parking at this location. The building is over 150 years old and is a small home. Will not have more than one or two cars at most. 5 Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JB – Great project and welcome to Fitchburg, NS – In favor of reinstating the vacant buildings. AZ – The proposed renovations will reduce the existing non-conformity. The proposal meets the criteria. The building will be structurally sound after the porch an addition have been removed. MM – In favor of the project with a 9 month review. Single-family dwelling is more conforming, reducing of the setbacks with the partial demolition of the porch and old rear addition, and do not see a downside to the reinstatement of this building. MM – Motion n ZBA-2016-27 to Grant a Special Permit to reinstate the abandoned/vacant building as a single family dwelling per plan submitted with the following condition: Review in 9 months – July 11, 2017 JB - Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Grant of the Special Permit with Review 7:30PM ZBA-2016-28 Jason M Andrews 275 CLARENDON ST Presentation given by Jason Andrews stating that the building has been vacant for 4 years. It will be owner occupied and he will be living in the upstairs unit. The upstairs unit is all electrical and will be ready for occupation first. The downstairs copper and heating radiators have been previously cut out. The boiler is still there, but may need replacing. He will not be changing the exterior of the building other than maintenance. It will take him about 2 years to get the outside done; roofing, siding, windows and landscaping. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Support: None MM – In favor of the rehab. This is not a big house, 2 units and will stay a 2 unit. There are 2 vehicles on the property now. When will you be occupying the building? Mr. Andrews – As soon as the approval period is over and he can get the utilities turned on, he will move into the upstairs unit. There is room for 3 more cars on the property. AZ – There is a pool in the backyard? Mr. Andrews – Yes, it is fenced in and he will be replacing the fence and it will have a lock. Are the utilities separate? Mr. Andrews – Yes, the upstairs unit is all electric. Downstairs uses the boiler and there are 2 different panels and meters for the electric service. The water is one meter for the entire building. LM – Correspondence from the Police Department: Upon review of this location it was observed that a driveway exists in front of the home and extends to a two car garage behind the home. The rear of the property is adjacent to St. Camille Street where additional parking could be created for any occupants of the home. No adverse traffic related issues were identified as of this investigation. AZ – This request meets the criteria with the more than adequate parking, it will be owner occupied, and has a nice layout. Would like to see a review in 9 months. 6 MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-28 to Grant a Special Permit to reinstate the abandoned/vacant building for a 2-family dwelling with the following conditions: 1. Petitioner to submit parking plan showing spaces for each unit 9’+ x 18.5’ 2. Review in 9 months – July 11, 2017 JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT of a Special Permit with Conditions 7:45PM ZBA-2016-29 Richard Gonzales 318-356 BROAD ST LM – Correspondence from the Police Department: The property in question is within a commercial area of Broad Street with the only observable traffic safety issue for this area would be the on street parking. Any additional use would take into consideration that Broad Street is a primary access route to the Department of Public Works facility where equipment may be needed in emergency situations requiring that the roadway be kept open and clear of vehicle obstructions. Richard Gonzales – I have owned the mill complex for about 20 years. In 2005 it was split into 2 properties. In 2013 he was approached by a buyer that wanted the buy the first building and requested a property line down the center of 356 and demolished a small building. The Planning Board allowed the line change because it made the non-conforming buildings more conforming. This made lots 1, 2 & 3. The sale fell through. After the small building was raised, he began to pay more attention to 342. No both 356 and 342 have parking and he has buyers for the 2 buildings under the proposed conditions and property line changes. MM – If we vote favorably on this petition, would like language in regard to an easement with the right to pass and repass for emergency and safety vehicles. AZ – What are the buildings being used for at the present time? At 356 – Church is using 3 floors and MOC is on the 4th floor. Other building is IPP on the 3rd floor, Power Tech Controls and First floor is a machine shop. This will be investor buying. Bonsai Manufacturing sells Bonsai Accessories. The small building is an Auto Restoration business and Overstock on floors 2 & 3. Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those in Support: None MM – You really didn’t have much leeway to move the property line for parking. Even though you will have the right to pass and repass language in the deeds for these properties, I would like it as a condition of the Variance. Board discussed the proposed lot line changes and the existing plan and proposed were reviewed by the Board and the petitioner. MM – When do you believe the transfer of the property will commence? Mr. Gonzales - Sometime in November, after the appeal period is over. We have been getting the paperwork in place in anticipation of a favorable decision. MM – We could grant the Variance since the lot line changes will made the buildings less non-conforming. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – All the building are industrial and non-conforming with less reason to meet setbacks. The moving of the property lines will allow for parking on each lot and be more conforming. Conditions discussed: 7  1. All tenants and Emergency Vehicles on these 3 lots will have the right to pass and repass over the designated area of all 3 lots as necessary for maintenance, demolition, renovations, emergencies and all other reasonable needs. 2. Review in 1 year – October 10, 2017 MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-29 to Grant a Variance to re-divide properties per plan submitted with the conditions discussed. AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT a Variance with Conditions 4. MISCELLANEOUS Short discussion on procedure and the goad of reinstating abandoned properties 5. ADJOURNMENT 8