Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 MINUTES OF THE MEETING December 13, 2016 1. Call to Order LM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE All 2. Communications LM ATTENDANCE: LM, MM, JB & AZ 3. Hearings 6:00PM ZBA-2015-16 CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Poynant Signs 161-181 MAIN ST Chair - First Call: Second Call: Third Call: No one is in attendance for this hearing to represent the petitioner or in the audience. Chair – Did not see any problem with the sign. MM – Not in favor of approving the review as I was not in favor of the electronic sign originally. AZ – Have viewed the sign and do not have any issues with it. JB – In favor of the approval Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – We should make a finding that the dead plantings should be replaced in the Spring. JB – So Moved AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 3-1 (MM) Approve the Review with finding: Dead plantings should be removed and replaced in the Spring. 6:15PM ZBA-2016-31 Active Life Health Care Management/Vladimir Giterman 783 WATER ST Presentation given by Zachary Tesler and Vladimir Giterman stating that they will be operating an adult day care center. The left side of the building is presently unoccupied. On the right side in the last unit is a small restaurant/bakery. They propose to occupy the portion of the building that was previously a flea market and Lincoln Drug Store. They operate two adult day care facilities in Lowell at the present time. The hours of operation will be 7:00AM-3:00PM, 7 days a week. This is a 6 hour day program with no overnight stays. They will service approximately 168 persons. They have their own bus fleet. A typical day is at 7:00AM buses go out to pick up patients, snack at facility about 8:00AM, 8:30AM-9:30AM go over services provided for the day, usually 4 different services; transportation to doctor appointments, group exercise, occupational, physical or mental therapy, transportation for shopping and day trip activities. When clients leave the building, there is still staff on hand at the facility and no all clients attend all activities. They are given their medications, and breakfast is delivered by local restaurants. At 11:00AM the clients receive another snack and about 1:00PM lunch is delivered and any special dietary needs are met as prescribed by the individual’s doctor. After lunch is an hour of quiet time, rooms for religious services are available, computer time, reading, etc. 2:00PM clients start to get ready for the bus and by 2:30PM they are on their way back to their homes. The average ages of the cliental is 20% in their 20’s and 80% 62 and over living alone. Buses will be parked in the back of the building overnight and employees will be parking on the right side of the property. The landlord will be improving the condition of the building. Since this is a medical facility, they want it to be appealing. Those Seeking Information: None Those in Favor: None Those Opposed: None AZ – Do you find any conflicts between people with the mental issues and the other cliental? Mr. Tesler – No, there is a nurse for every 6 patients and if any type of conflict arises a social worker comes right over and defuses the problem immediately. People eligible for this program have to be approved to participate and want to be here. In the winter most of time is spent indoors. As soon as the weather gets nice, day trips are scheduled and the majority of clients participate. JB – Do you have to be licensed? Mr. Tesler – Yes, we are licensed by the State. Mass.gov has the regulations and they are numerous. They are inspect twice a year for the first 3 years by the Dept. of Public Health and several other departments also inspect the facility and its operation during the year. JB-Have you ever had any violations at your other location? Mr. Tesler – Once we were sited because our refrigerator was not working at keeping this cold enough and we didn’t know it had malfunctioned. We will also be inspected by your local departments, Planning, Building, Fire and then by the Dept. of Public Health. We will be contracting with a local ambulance service and it is also a requirement. We have been at our other facility for 6 years and in that time there have been 12 weddings. There is a small area in the back of the building that will be made into a smoking area. It will be fenced in with a white vinyl fence. They will have a dumpster for their facility next to the restaurant’s dumpster on the right side of the building. They will be using local people, real estate agent, building contractor and employment opportunities for staff positions. Chair – What are your plans to improve the outside of the building and the parking lot? Mr. Tesler – Landlord will be making improvements to the outside. They will make sure improvements are made because it is in their best interest to have a well-kept, attractive appearance. MM – You mentioned you would be using local restaurants for meals? Mr. Tesler – Yes, we currently contract with 5 restaurants in Lowell for that facility and will be using local restaurants here for this location. MM – How do people start coming to your facility? Mr. Tesler – Mass Health recipients, recommended by a doctor and approved by the State whether or not a person qualifies. Most of the people live alone and have no transportation. The facility extends their independence for up to 7 years on average. MM – We struggle with improving the gateways to the City. If you could soften the look of the parking lot and grounds with plantings it would be a great improvement, especially between the sidewalk and the parking. What is your expected timeline for completion. Mr. Tesler – 3-4 months after approval. Chair – We would like to continue the hearing to next month in order for you to give us a revised plot plan showing all you proposed improvements, dumpster location, bus parking, employee parking, and any plantings for beautification. Also, if you could provide the Board with pictures of your present locations and the grounds, that would be helpful. MM - Motion on ZBA-2016-31 to Continue the hearing to January 10, 2017 at 6:45PM AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 GRANT a Continuance 6:30PM ZBA-2015-01 Michael /AKS Recycling & Charles George Co. 15 COBBLER DR/41 BLUEBERRY LN Chair - First Call 10 min. Chair – Second Call 10 min. Chair – Third Call 2 No one in attendance for this hearing to represent the petitioner or business. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – I am inclined to revoke the Special Permit. We have noticed the business and continued this review a number of times and they choose to not be in attendance. No call and no show. Chair – I would not be inclined to do that. MM – Spoke with the City Solicitor and discovered that the business in infringing on City property, leasing 7 acres and using approximately 14 acres and Councilor Beauchemin has made complaints about the trash at the prior hearing. MM – Motion on ZBA-2015-01 to Approve the Review to conduct a Vehicle Recycling & Salvage Business located in the Industrial District AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 1-3 (MM, JB, AZ) Motion Denied Special Permit Revoked *Request Building Commissioner to give AKS Recycling a Cease and Desist Order or whatever the enforcement is in regard to this revocation. 6:45PM ZBA-2014-04 Twin Cities Community Dev. Corp. 4 LEIGHTON ST Presentation given by Steven Cook of the CDC stating that everything is going along fine. They are waiting for the cab part of the lift to the first floor to be delivered. The cab was a special order. The project has been occupied throughout the construction. It should be in place by Thursday. They never lost occupancy. Building Commissioner Lanciani through the secretary said that he will be doing the final sign off and they will receive a Letter of Completion when this is done, everything else has been signed-off as complete. Chair – It looks good, the entire building has been painted and the colors are appealing. Mr. Cook – We had to replace more siding than we had planned. The financing was the longest part of the project. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: Chair – We should strike condition #1 and replace with a sunset clause. #3, #4 and #5 have been completed, #2 and #6 will remain with Planning Board conditions listed MM – Motion on ZBA-2014-04 to Approve the Review with revised conditions: 1. Sunset Clause – Special Permit will expire/terminate upon the sale/transfer of the business/property from Twin Cities Community Development Corporation 2. Not to be sublet 3. Planning Board Conditions adopted into this decision: 1. This Special Permit is granted only to the applicant (Twin Cities Community Development Corp.) and is not transferable 2. Development to be in substantial compliance with approved site plan: “Site Plan, 4 Leighton Street, Twin cities C.D.C.”, prepared by Home & Johnson/StepONE, dated January 2, 2014 3. Dumpster on site is to be screened w/white vinyl fence. 4. Entire structure is to be repainted 5. Make building to be Handicap-accessible per code 6. Make H/C ramp at the corner of Foster d& Leighton Streets accessible per code 7. Install residential sprinkler system per code 8. Subject to Planning Board review and approval of plans for the proposed outside shelter 9. All exterior improvements shall be completed no later than September 1, 2014 10. If the Rooming House use is changed in the future, the required parking spaces provided shall comply with the current standard for the proposed use 3  11. A duly authorized agent of the City of Fitchburg shall have the right to enter upon the site to ensure continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Special Permit 12. Subject to obtaining any other necessary other local, state, and federal permits and approvals 13. Unless waived in writing either within the decision or on the site plan, all other applicable provisions of the City of Fitchburg zoning ordinances, codes and subdivision rules and regulations apply to this site 14. This Special Permit shall lapse if a substantial use thereof or construction thereunder has not begun, except for good cause, within twenty-four (24) months following the filing of the Special Permit decision (plus such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal referred to in G.Lc. 40A, s.17, from the grant thereof) with the City Clerk AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 APPROVE the Review 7:00PM ZBA-2016-24 Hannah Wanjiku & Timothy Kihiko 160 PLYMOUTH ST Presentation given by Timothy Kihiko presenting the Board with a revised parking plan. The parking plan showing 6 spaces did not have the correct measurements for a legal parking space. A plan with the required space for a parking spot showed only 5 spaces. Making a parking space in the driveway is not acceptable, as the other cars would not be able to pass without the car in the driveway space being moved. Those In Favor: None Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None MM – We cannot alter the parking standards. The measurements for a parking spot are there for safety reasons. Chair – This property will be a 3 bedroom, 3 unit, rental property and not owner occupied. Correct? Mr. Kihiko – Yes AZ – This is a 9 bedroom building with only 5 spaces and could become easily overcrowded with parking. MM – We have an over concentration of population in our City. You are asking us to continue on with the concentration without the required parking. We are trying to better our city and no be part of the problem. As a developer, Mr. Kihiko had a difference of opinion as to what would be better for the city. The Board was skeptical of allowing this project with the required parking spaces (6) and is less inclined with only 5 spaces available. Mr. Kihiko argued that this property had more parking than most of the neighborhood. MM – We are also concerned about snow removal or where you will push the snow to. You haven’t enough parking, where will you put the snow? We are not trying to make this difficult for you, but these are thing the Board must take into consideration. Chair – Perhaps you could come up with another option to give you more parking, or you could reduce the number of apartments. Mr. Kihiko requested a continuance of his hearing to study the problems and come back with an alternative plan for the property. Chair – Continue the hearing to February 14, 2017 at 6:00PM Joseph Byrne – So Moved AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 Continue the hearing to February 14, 2017 at 6:00PM 4 7:15PM ZBA-2016-30 Dr. Rev. Dennis A Bradley 50 FRANKFORT ST Chair – First Call: Second Call: Third Call: Petitioner not in attendance for this hearing. No call – No show. Those in Favor: Those Seeking Information: Keith Barns of 135 Pratt Rd Those Opposed: Mr. and Mrs. John Benson AZ – Do not find that we have the authority to grant the requested proposed use for this property. MM – We continue to see no shows and it is rather odd than no one out of the crowd in favor of the proposal is not here this evening. The petitioner’s request was very vague, they were to submit more information to the Board this evening. We do not have enough information to entertain a favorable vote. AZ – As a matter of procedure, I am not inclined to be as lenient with petitioners represented by council as I would be with a homeowner who may not have the where with all. There is no excuse for not giving notice if not able to make a hearing by an attorney. They are trying to reinstate a vacant building for a use that never existed at the site. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – Not in favor of this request. Under §181.3561, I am not finding any architectural or other features deemed appropriate for rehabilitation. Under §181.31 the proposed use is not an allowed use in the Residential C District. AZ – Second both points A. AZ – Under §181.31: “no structure shall be erected or used except as set forth in the following Table of Use Regulations (§181.313), including the notes to the Schedule, or as otherwise set forth herein, or as exempted by General Laws. Any building or use of premises not herein expressly permitted is hereby prohibited”. The use requested in not listed in the table and is therefore prohibited. This is a pre-existing non-conforming structure which does not meet the setback requirements and had lost its protected status due to abandonment for more than 2 years. Under §181.3561 “To be eligible for such special permit, the structure must have architectural or other features deemed appropriate for rehabilitation . . .”. No features deemed appropriate for rehabilitation were shown or presented. MM – I have done research into the orphanage use and it does not exist in Massachusetts. The closest use was for a transitional type facility. MM – Motion on ZBA-3016-31 to Approve the request for the reinstatement of an abandoned/vacant building as an orphanage located in the Residential C District AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 0-4 Motion Denied Deny the Special Permit 4 MISCELLANEOUS Discussion in regard to abandoned/vacant buildings 5 ADJOURNMENT JB – Motion to adjourn AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 Adjournment 5