Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 SENIOR CENTER, 14 WALLACE AV MINUTES OF THE MEETING – APRIL 11, 2017 1. Call to Order: All PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: All 2. Communications ATTENDANCE: LM, MM, AZ, JB, JM & NS 3. Hearings 6:00PM ZBA-2014-01 Santo Viola/Northern Lights RT 226 WESTMINSTER ST Presentation given by John Shammus, Partner, stating that the store part of the business did not work as well as they had hoped. They have discontinued the use and have no need for the Use Variance any longer. They are going to continue to operate the restaurant and are looking toward making improvements to the building and property in the future. No one was in attendance in the audience for this hearing. MM – How is business? Mr. Shammus – business is picking up. MM – You have a great opportunity with Great Wolf in close proximity and the Board wishes the best for your business. MM – Motion on ZBA-2014-01 to Approve the Review of the Use Variance under §181.313 for a section of the building to be used as a retail store. AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 0-5 Unanimously DENIED the Review and Revoke the Use Variance 6:10PM ZBA-2014-11 Sean Morrison 76 SUMMER ST Case was called 3 times and taken out of order because petitioner arrived late to the meeting (6:40PM) Presentation given by Sean Morrison stating that he is not sure to open this season, but would like to keep the variance to have the ability to open if possible. No one is in attendance in the audience for this hearing. MM – Motion to Approve the Review changing the review date to April 2018, with same conditions: 1. Hours of Operation: 11:00AM-4:00PM Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Sunday Friday & Saturday re-open from 9:00PM-2:00AM 2. Review in One year, April 2018 3. Must be owner operated not leased 4. Plan as submitted 5. No plastic or vinyl banners  6. Not to be operated as a nuisance 7. Will meet all requirements of Building, Board of Health, Police, Safety and other City Department as requested 8. Sunset Clause – Special Permit will terminate upon the transfer/sale of the business and/or change of Owner/operator from Sean Morrison JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Approve the Review 6:20PM ZBA-2016-03 Peter Cote 310 MAIN ST Presentation given by Peter Cote stating that business is going slow. Petitioner requested an extension of the Variance for the reader board sign at this time. No one in attendance in the audience for this hearing. MM – Not in favor of the sign, size or style, but love your business and will continue to support it. AZ – Do not see any harm in extending the variance. JM - If substantially begun in 6 months, I do not see a problem with extension. MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-03 to Approve the Review and grant an Extension of 6 months for the Variance under §181.5363 for a new Electronic Reader Board Sign JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-1 APPROVE the Review and GRANT the Variance a 6-month Extension Negative - MM 6:30PM ZBA-2017-10 JMC Apartments, LLC 234 DANIELS ST Presentation given by Jose Mendez and Lawrence LaGoy stating that they are in for the long haul. Mr. Mendez lives a block away from this property. LM – The parking spots shown on your plan are all a foot short and the turning radius is not wide enough. AZ – Parking stalls have to be 9’ x 18.5’, maneuvering isle 24’ and you also need a 10’ buffer between parking and the lot line. These measurements are found in §181.5142 and §181.516. No one in attendance in the audience for this hearing. JB – When did you purchase the property? Mr. Mendez – purchased the property 5 months ago. Reinforced the porches. Some work had been done on the property before he purchased it. JB – You have owned this property since December and there is a tremendous amount of trash all over the property. This tends to show the Board that you are not serious about the betterment of Fitchburg. JM – I am concerned about adequate parking spots and the poor condition of the property. Mr. Mendez stated that he would be paving and lining the back of the property for parking. 2 MM – The building is obsolete by today’s standards. Mr. LaGoy, you’re the manager and contractor so you understand the building permit process. Having the amount of debris that is on this property since December is repulsive. If the entire back of the property is for parking, where will you put the snow in the winter? Mr. LaGoy – We have a bob-cat and would be removing the snow from the property. MM – Will you remove or rebuild the porches? Mr. LaGoy – Whatever is required and acceptable to the Building Code. We will also be replacing what siding needs to be. MM – Under §181.3561 “To be eligible for such special permit, the structure must have architectural or other features deemed appropriate for rehabilitation ……”. One of our duties as a Board is to try to make Fitchburg a better place according to the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. It has been a long, hard road with blight in the Cleghorn area. There is a commercial building on one side and another 3-family on the other side of this property. Your intention is to make all of the backyard parking with no green space. Looking at what has been presented and what would be appropriate, I would not be in favor of reinstating this structure as a 3-family. There needs to be quality rehab, adequate parking and green space so that the property can sustain itself and be an improvement to the neighborhood. AZ – What is your vision for this property? Right now it is an eyesore. We have been hearing minimal repair and whatever is allowable. Understand you need to make a profit and this property is an investment for you, but doing the minimum allowable is not our vision for the city. Mr. Mendez and Mr. LaGoy both stated that improvement was their intent, not just an acceptable job. JB – Regardless of the condition of the property and the intended repairs, you cannot stretch the length or width of the property and I do not see how you will achieve adequate parking for a 3-family dwelling or even a 2-family dwelling on this property. LM – Is there any other land that you could buy or rent space for parking? Mr. Mendez – The commercial building next door has no land or parking. NS – Just so you know, there are a couple of windows open on the property that you might want to take care of. Petitioner requested a continuance until the May 9, 2017 meeting in order to revisit his plan for parking with the correct dimensions and City Departments in regard to code requirements. Mutual Agreement for Extension of Time was signed at this time. MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-10 to Continue the hearing for further information to May 9, 2017 JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT a Continuance to May 9, 2017 6:45PM ZBA-2017-11 Virgil & Carol Lucas 48 NEWTON ST LM – Affidavit is part of the petition Presentation given by Lucas Millen, grandson, stating that nothing has changed on the property or the apartment. The home has had the separate utilities since the addition was constructed. No one in attendance for this hearing in the audience. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: 3 Board had no questions. This is an ongoing request that expires every 5 years and must be applied for at that time. AZ – Meets the criteria under §181.34 MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-11 to Grant a Special Permit for the Accessory Apartment with previous conditions: 1. Property not to be sold as a 2-family 2. Special Permit expires in 5 years and must be reapplied for prior to expiration 3. Special Permit will terminate/expire upon sale/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. In all other respects, use of the accessory apartment shall comply with §181.34 JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT the Special Permit with conditions 7:00PM ZBA-2017-12 Mark Rivers 535 PEARL HILL RD LM – Affidavit is included in the petition Presentation given by Mark Rivers stating nothing has changed with the apartment or the property. Both the main house and the accessory apartment are on the same utilities. Those in Favor: Josephine Rivers, wife, and it is her mother in the apartment. No one else was in attendance for this hearing. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JB - Beautiful property and third time this special permit has been renewed. AZ – Meets the criteria under §181.34 with our standard conditions. MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-12 to Grant a Special Permit for the Accessory Apartment with 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 expire/terminate upon the sale/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 the 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 the Registry of Deeds JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT the Special Permit with Conditions 4 7:15PM ZBA-2017-13 Stephanie Sellers-Fornos 9 MILK ST Presentation given by Stephanie Sellers-Fornos stating that she would like to reinstate this structure as a single-family home which will be owner occupied. Jeffrey Benoit, Contractor, stated that the structure is sound and he will only have to do cosmetic repairs to bring it up to current code. The electrical paned will be updated and she needs a new hot-water heater. LM – Read the Fire Department’s comments in regard to smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. No one in attendance for this hearing in the audience. MM – To the right of this property is 7 Milk St. and the building there was taken down some time ago. If you could acquire that property it would give you a nice yard; it isn’t a buildable lot. Mr. Benoit – She is thinking about doing that in the future if financially feasible. MM – The structure has some really nice features. NS – There is a piece of the fence missing between your property and the next lot that leads to a whole which you may want to address for safety. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – In looking at the criteria, this structure is architecturally suited for rehabilitation. The use will be a single-family home, owner occupied with adequate parking. Board members were in favor. MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-13 to Grant the Special Permit to reinstate the building as a single-family dwelling. JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT of the Special Permit 7:30PM ZBA-2017-14 Miralva Pagan 133 CEDAR ST Presentation given by Miralva Pagan and Anoldi Mendoza stating that she bought the property to rehab for rental units. She is planning on investing approximately $40,000, painting and new heating system. LM – Read the Fire Department’s comments in regard to a sprinkler system, smoke and carbon monoxide detector requirements. Also, there is only one parking space showing for this property. Those Seeking Information – Thomas Gross of 137-139 Cedar St.: Parking is horrendous in this neighborhood. No opposed to the rehabilitation of the building if they can make adequate off-street parking. He and the neighbors have had on going problems with this property over the years with people parking on their property because there is no parking for this lot. Most people park on the street and are supposed to have a sticker to be allowed to park, but they spill over onto the private property residences. The parking is already stretched to its limit in this neighborhood and is a constant nightmare with congestion and noise. Harold Brown of 127 Cedar St.: This building has been a concern for the last 18 years. Every person that has owned this building has been an absentee landlord that never checks on it. 5 People park in his driveway so there is no room for his family to park. Kevin Bedard of 104 Pearl St.: Back of his property abuts this structure and it is so close he has to keep the windows closed in the summer so the people cannot see into his bathroom and bedrooms. Mr. Bedard’s driveway is on Cedar St and to keep people from using it is brutal. LM – Your plan is showing 3-units. We need a parking plan showing 2 spaces per unit or an alternative parking agreement, or you may want to consider reducing the number of units to a 2-family or a single- family dwelling if you can show adequate parking. JB – Things were different years ago when these houses were built. The buildings were owned by families that worked at the mills and may have only had one car if that. If you do not have adequate parking, it disqualifies the property for rehabilitation. NS – In viewing the property, found that a considerable amount of work would have to be done to make the back porches safe, just to have egress out of the building. A little paint and new heating is not even minimal rehab for this structure. JM – If there is a snow storm, you would not have parking for even one car. MM – I share the same concerns as fellow Board members. Do you plan on siding the building? Ms. Pagan – Will repair siding that needs it and paint the trim, it is not in bad condition. If necessary, we will replace the porches. MM – You have heard our concerns in regard to a parking plan. AZ – I count 10 bedrooms in this structure. If this were to be a single-family, it still has the potential for a large number of cars and parking is essential. Petitioner requested a continuance to revisit her parking plan and contact other city departments for potential code compliance. MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-14 to Continue the hearing to June 13, 2017 for a new plan. AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 GRANT a Continuance to June 13, 2017 7:45PM ZBA-2017-08 Christie DeRosa 47 PACIFIC ST Christie DeRosa and Josh Connors, partner, presented the parking plan requested by the Board at the last hearing. The plan shows 4 spaces on the next lot which he will be paving. They will also be addressing the drainage issues not taken care of by the previous owner. No one in attendance in the audience for this hearing. MM – Motion to accept this plan as part of the findings for the grant of the Special Permit for ZBA-2017- 08 JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 5-0 Parking Plan ACCEPTED toward Findings 6 8:00PM ZBA-2016-24 Hannah Wanjiku & Timothy Kihiko 160 PLYMOUTH ST Petitioner is not in attendance for this hearing after 3 calls. Petitioner also did not attend the last hearing in March. There is no one in attendance for this hearing in the audience. JB – Nothing has been done to clean-up the property in all the months it has come before us and we have been requesting a parking plan for the number of units requested. Originally the request was for 3-units and later reduced to 2-units. Petitioner has had several opportunities to present us with a plan. MM – Based on the number of notification given and the reluctance of the petitioner to make the changes needed on the plans, it is apparent that the applicant is no serious about moving forward with the special permit. AZ – The petitioner has been reluctant to make appropriate changes and has not been in attendance at the meetings. LM – The debris on the property is the same as when the petitioner first came before us. MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-24 to Grant a Special Permit for the reinstatement of a vacant building for a 2-family use. JB – Motion Seconded VOTE: 0-5 Special Permit DENIED 8:15PM ZBA-2017-05 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 479 ELECTRIC AV Cumberland Farms represented by Attorney Reed is before the Board for a finding. Attorney Pawlak is representing the Zoning Board of Appeals Presentation given by Attorney Vincent Pusateri II stating that although the Board voted to Grant Cumberland Farms request that a corrected plan of the project addressing traffic concerns that were not caught on the approved plan. At the time, Cumberland Farms was not aware of the concerns of the DPW. Concerns were discussed by Cumberland’s, the Mayor, Lenny Laakso-DPW, Councilor Beauchemin, and Attorney Pusateri. They are all in agreement that the changes to the plan are de minimis. Finding A of the Board’s Decision is therefore inaccurate. The changes to the plan was discussed at length with the Board at this time. The Board is in agreement that the changes are de minimis and have been adopted for safety reasons. This plan has also gone before the Planning Board and been approved. Letter from the Department of Public Works was presented at this time. 7 MM – Will our original condition remain in effect? Attorney Pusateri and Attorney Pawlak both agreed that the original conditions will remain on the Special Permit and that only a finding is required of the Board. Attorney Reed stated that Cumberland Farms is donating $16,000 toward the new pedestrian lights to be installed at the crosswalks. Attorney Pawlak – The Board has already approved the Special Permit and if you find that this plan is a de minimis change it does not need to be noticed before the public again and you will stand by your original decision with the updated plan. LM – Only 4 members of the 5 that attended your hearing are present tonight, you will need a unanimous vote to have this finding granted. Do you wish to proceed? Attorney Reedy – Yes. MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-05 to affirm the Grant by the Board and accept the revised plan; finding that it is a de minimis change. AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 Finding the changes are de minimis and Accept the updated plan as materially identical 4. MISCELLANEOUS 8:15PM ZBA-2017-05 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 479 ELECTRIC AV Cumberland Farms represented by Attorney Reed is before the Board for a finding. Attorney Pawlak is representing the Zoning Board of Appeals Presentation given by Attorney Vincent Pusateri II stating that although the Board voted to Grant Cumberland Farms request that a corrected plan of the project addressing traffic concerns that were not caught on the approved plan. At the time, Cumberland Farms was not aware of the concerns of the DPW. Concerns were discussed by Cumberland’s, the Mayor, Lenny Laakso-DPW, Councilor Beauchemin, and Attorney Pusateri. They are all in agreement that the changes to the plan are de minimis. The changes to the plan was discussed at length with the Board at this time. The Board is in agreement that the changes are de minimis and have been adopted for safety reasons. This plan has also gone before the Planning Board and been approved. Letter from the Department of Public Works was presented at this time. MM – Will our original condition remain in effect? Attorney Pusateri and Attorney Pawlak both agreed that the original conditions will remain on the Special Permit and that only a finding is required of the Board. Attorney Reed stated that Cumberland Farms is donating $16,000 toward the new pedestrian lights to be installed at the crosswalks. Attorney Pawlak – The Board has already approved the Special Permit and if you find that this plan is a de minimis change it does not need to be noticed before the public again and you will stand by your original decision with the updated plan. 8 LM – Only 4 members of the 5 that attended your hearing are present tonight, you will need a unanimous vote to have this finding granted. Do you wish to proceed? Attorney Reedy – Yes. MM – Motion on ZBA-2017-05 to affirm the Grant by the Board and accept the revised plan; finding that it is a de minimis change. AZ – Motion Seconded VOTE: 4-0 Finding the changes are de minimis and Accept the updated plan as materially identical. 5. ADJOURNMENT 9