Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – December 11, 2018 SENIOR CENTER, 14 WALLACE AV 1. Call to Order: LM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: All 2. Communications: LM ATTENDANCE: LM, MM, AZ, JB & JM 3. Hearings CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2017-19 Mohammad Chaudhary 19-23 PROSPECT ST 7:00PM Review Special Permit Conditions under §181.3561 to reinstate an abandoned/vacant building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential C District at 18/48/0 Chair Person called 3 times, but petitioner is not in attendance at this hearing, and has not expressed what his intentions are. Board Members are aware that property’s building suffered a fire few months ago and would like to give some additional time to the petitioner, so he can come back to express his future intentions on the petition or to the property. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None Hearing Closed: Deliberations: LM – Petitioner is not here, how the Board Members would like to proceed? AZ – Leave to Withdraw without prejudice, since that they had extenuated circumstances, because they can rebuild it in accordance with the City Ordinance as it was before. LM – So, why wouldn’t we leave it for Review then and putting on in the next few months? MM – We should wait and see, have them to comeback to see what their plans are for the new structure, because if we leave the withdrawal it may take away the flexibility where they want to keep some of property architecture AZ – Yeah, but if they want to rebuild on the same foot print we can’t really put any structure conditions on that MM – So, what is the harm to just waiting to what’s come with that? AZ – We could the only harm will be if that he hasn’t come within a year the Special Permit expired. So they won’t be able to reapply easily LM – Do we know when they apply? MM – That will be on the original application and it appears that they applied on April 3, 2017 – LM – So, we can put them for 3 months so they can probably can have some ideas from their home insurance AZ – Motion on ZBA-2017-19 under §181.3561 to CONTINUE the Review to April 9, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote: 5-0 to Grant the Continue to April 9, 2019 ZBA-2018-11 Brothers Parking Lots and Roads 126 JACKSON AVE 7:10PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313D5 for a Construction Yard located in the Industrial District at 59/9/0 Presentation given by Eric Stanley of 556 Central St., Leominster, MA stating that originally he was granted to have a 15X15 SF. Shed, and he would like to install a bigger one. LM – Well, that isn’t why you are here I don’t believe - ES – They told me to come tonight for that request JB – Nothing has been done with it since we first came here except vehicles have been parked in the property and electrical – ES – we are going to put up the fence – JB – Well, you were supposed to put it up when you started this about a year ago – ES – Yeah Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – So, let review those conditions first and we can take it that way:  1. Property to be fence right, left and rear side no more than 6’ height 2. Parking to be paved 3. No more than 4 vehicles on the property 4. To be build a Shed on the rear and no bigger than 15X15 SF 5. And the 6 Months Review LM - So, you are here for the review, but none of the above conditions 1 to 4 had been completed – ES – We had torn the house down and now we are going to move forward – LM – How long has it been that you tore the house down? ES – About 5 months – LM – So, when is the intent to work on #1 through #3 conditions? ES – Our intention is to be working on those this month or next month LM- She thinks that before petitioner ask for more the Board needs to see some progress on current conditions and the property itself - ES- alright AZ – He’s agree that the Board shouldn’t grant any more petition, before the current conditions had been met. He also, would like to point out that as of right now there whether on what are you count for a hitch RV’s as a storage vehicle on site, which he is not sure if that is a Zoning Ordinance Violation, but on his mind at least RV’s are not construction yard storage. However he just wanted to point this out so the petitioner can take care of it before the Board would considered granting any more to his petition. LM – So, when are you planning to install or build the fence? ES – It can be completed next month AZ – Including the paving? ES – Yes, that’s easy to do MM – Can you get black top? ES – He has black top in Boston, but if the Board wants it to get done he can do it LM – We just wanted a realistic date that’s all, even if there is going to be few months we rather just know and its fine – ES – He rather had this done sooner JM – On his opinion, before discussing any other conditions or asking for new stuff on his case, previous conditions should be met – ES – Okay, agreed MM – We granted the permit back on May and till now nothing has done, there was a review where no one shows-up and if you didn’t come tonight we probably would revoke the permit - ES – Okay, we are going to try to do it with the black top –MM – To put the fence up, left, right and rear side and to do the parking lot. Do you need till March or something to do it right? ES - 2 months is all what we need – MM – So you are going to meet this on February? ES – The fence can be done in a month, but the paving probably would have to be pushed out a little further as the weather permitted JM – Would like to see the property clean and neat too AZ – Motion o ZBA-2018-11 under §181.313D5 to Grant the Continuance on the Review with the following conditions: 1. Property to be fenced right, left and rear side no more than 6FT height. 2. Parking to be Paved 3. No more than 4 Vehicles on the property 4. To be built: a Shed on the rear side and no bigger than 15X15 SF. 5. 2 Months Review February 12, 2019 MM – Motion Seconded Vote: 5-0 to Grant the Continuance to February 12, 2019 ZBA-2018-37 Craig Twohey 70-72 FALULAH ST 7:20PM Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential C District at 141/28/0 Presentation given by Craig Twohey and Kenneth Godfrey stating that they are investors and they bought this vacant property, which is in very good condition and everybody in the neighborhood will also appreciate to have this 3-family dwelling back to life. Also, by rehabilitating this property will prevent people to come in and vandalize the property. What we do is buy random properties and bring them back to life. Property to remain as it is, no structural or footprint to be change. Our plan is to fix as it is needed and re-sell to be home owner occupied. We will pull the right permits from the City to do everything right. As investors that’s what we do, we like to find some eye sore properties bring them back to life, to start back paying taxes and most we specialize is to re-sell them to be home owner occupied, we want this to be someone’s home to live in it, and to be their home Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: Mike King of 11 Hawes St. and also owns 34 Falulah St. and he is here to support the petitioner Those Opposed: None JM – Are you going to fix the garage? KG – Yes, we will 2 MM – The siding, are you going to put new siding? KG- No, siding is in very good conditions – MM – Windows? KG – Those windows are barely new – MM - Porches and decks? KG – They are also on very good conditions – MM – Are you going to painting them? KG – We may when the weather permitted – MM – The front concrete stairs on the side walk they are pretty bad, going replaced all that? KG – That’s something that we can look up and it’s something that we can consider about - MM - How about the overgrown landscape? KG – Was a lot of overgrown and we completely cleaned it up –MM – Okay so what’s there, it’s going to remain? KG – Yes, it’s going to remain and we will landscape – MM – Okay so, what are you going to be doing for landscaping? KG- So, we are going to lawn it and trim those overgrown out – MM – So, you are going to maintain the property not really going to landscape? KG – Yeah – MM – New door on the garage? KG – Yes, we are going to be putting brand new doors on it, by the time we sell the property is going to be in good condition – MM – Parking he knows that there is plenty land to create parking, but his concern is about the 3 parking spots are kind of jam right against the entrance of the rear exit of the property. Plenty parking possibility out back, so he will like to see a revise parking plan moving these presented cars all the way from the entrances; not a parking expert person, but for all the land they have they can fit 6 vehicles with no problems – KG – It has to be paved? MM – Yes, that’s requirement by our City Ordinance. He also would like to recommend that when petitioner obtain a new parking plan to look at the City Parking criteria for the right parking measurement LM – We are giving you some flexibility, so you may can utilize some of the land space, but we don’t want to lock in something - CT – Does this mean that we will have to come back before you? LM – Well we will see – CT – Can we just submit the plans to you without coming here? LM - probably we can work around the process with you, but we will make that decision later MM – he is looking this very favorable, but he would like to see some landscape and all the stuff removed, because its look like it hasn’t been taken care for years and years – KG – Place is on great condition JB – Those trees close to the house should be removed – KG – Okay – JB – He went look the property and has plenty room on the back shouldn’t be any problem creating parking there – KG – We will address that LM – Response sheet from the Building Departments says that the last knew is that you were going for the Special Permit and that’s been a while ago. When was the dated that you bought the property? CT – it has been about a year ago – MM – So, we understand that you are anxious but you been waiting for a year, so you may have to be patience with us because we are just trying to do our job and we can’t treat anyone differently, we have to treat everyone the same LM – Board of Health response states that they are happy to see this property is back to life and occupied, been vacant and its nice building with a nice neighborhood AZ – He is agree about the landscaping and also would like to point out that when something hasn’t been taken care long enough you can’t rehabilitated just by taking care what’s there, kind of have to replace with new stuff. He knows that’s not the new owner fault you didn’t own it back then, but it does apply to the kind of property you bought. Then as far as the porches they do look structurally in good conditions, but there is one section to back right and another section that was knockout. He would like to those two thing to take care off. – KG – Okay – AZ – And back to the parking, he just wants to get into that a little more detail, so he would like to know how will be install them because those are the things they will be looking on the finalize parking plan? KG – Oh, okay we will tell the engineer so we all can be on the same page – AZ – Are you planning using the garage as a parking or as a storage? KG - It will be up to the new owner MM – The frame time to complete this project? KG – 3 months, but parking probably can’t be done until paving companies are open Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – On his opinion is not a good idea to have a tenant be parking next to someone bedroom window (as show on plans) AZ – He thinks that this is a great property to be reinstating and the Board could make as a condition to not to be occupied until the project is complete MM – All deck/porches balconies in front to be repair, concrete stairs to be replace and garage new door and side door entrance LM – Boar Member are okay to approved the project and put some conditions to make sure project will be complete AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-37 under §181.3561 to Approved the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. All exterior deck, porches and stairs to be stained and painted 2. Front concrete stairs and walkway and on the right side to be replaced 3. Garage side and overhead doors to be replaced 4. Certified parking plan to be submitted at March review 5. Property not to be occupied, sold, or transferred prior to all conditions being met 6. Review to March 12, 2019 MM – Motion Seconded 3 Vote: 5-0 to Approved the Special Permit with conditions ZBA-2018-38 Positive Properties, LLC 35 JEANNETTE ST 7:40PM Variance under §181.355 to erect a 26’ x 24’ attached garage with a room above leaving +/-7’ to the property line located in the Residential A-2 District at 101/11/A Presentation given by James Papas, Kelly Wolski and Chrisopher Cordio stating that this is a single family house that stands alone, the house sits on a level with 95’ of street frontage117’2 down each side the house poses no danger or threat to the neighborhood. On Jeannette Street there are many houses with a car or two car garage, other ones have carport. It is a single story structure and will remain the same, with the addition it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. We are looking to make this a place where we can grow our family, where we can be comfortable and bring joy to the neighborhood. Every neighbor was excited that the “eye sore” in the neighborhood was going to be cleaned, Jeannette St. is a very quiet street is moderately traveled traffic. It’s a neighborhood where everybody waves and stops to tell us how amazing the property looks. We are asking for the side variance because this is the best part of the property to build the garage topography speaking, we are looking for side yard to encroach it up to 7’ feet from property line. In addition, as far as hardship is concern, we look and see if we could build the garage elsewhere and the only place will be behind the house which will causing a driveway and will cause excavate, also we wouldn’t have the right to walk right into the house and that’s the benefit having an attached garage. So, we are hoping that the Board find something favorable and approved the variance. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: Paul Vaillancourt of 27 Jeannette St., totally in favor he did a wonderful thing to the neighborhood. Robert Healey of 14 Jeannette St., knows Chris for many years and our neighborhood will look much better. Mike King of 11 Hawes St., Real State Broker and he thinks that is a great fit to the neighborhood. Kevin 18 California Av., and he is totally on favor of this petition he thinks that’s will be a safer for the neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Larson of 38 Jeannette St., directly across of street from the property and prior this they though that they were living in the woods, but now is a beautiful view and they are very happy with the project, it really going help in their opinion with property values Those Opposed: None MM – Any landscape fence on the right side of the property because it’s very close. You also mention that there are other houses in the neighborhood with garage and carports, are those close within the set-back less than 15’? JP – Yes – MM – His other request will be if the Board approved it, is to make sure that the driveway gets pave – CC – We are going to be doing a brand new fence all way around, we are going chose some vinyl, maybe at the end of the project – JP – This is not a rental, not a flip to re-sell this property; is an intent to be home owner occupied. JB – He loves the neighbors coming in and said its wonderful, he loves the idea that’s petitioner is doing something to beautify the neighborhood AZ – He love the project you are doing, but the hardship could you tell us something about why is this a unique circumstance and why we should grant you the variance? JP – Well, because of the way the lot is the only place to build the garage and get access to the house is the side of the house, so we not only gain the garage, but also gain the space upstairs JS – What is going to be room above? CC – A bedroom - So, what is currently now? CC – 3-bedroom MM – Lets elevate the project, so people can say wow this is a great improvement. So, his thought was to put vinyl fence all around, not wood one. CC – Oh, yeah is going to be nice vinyl fence Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JS – She thinks is a good fit and very favorable for it JM – It meet the criteria on his opinion LM – Her thoughts are pretty much the same MM – Just would like to see the vinyl fence and whatever conditions the Board think he will be okay with AZ – He thinks it will be a good idea to have a future review, just to see how things goes LM – Also on favor of the petition and to have a review for the summer will be okay 4 AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-38 under §181.355 to Grant the Variance as is requested with the following conditions: 1. Driveway to be pave 2. Review on July 9, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote: 5-0 to Grant the Variance with conditions ZBA-2018-30 David & Lorie Petrucci 1280 ASHBURNHAM HL RD 8:00PM Continuance: Variance under §181.3433 to erect an 1100 sq. ft. addition for an Accessory Apartment located in the Rural Residential District at 77R/23/4 The petitioner had informed us with a verbal notification stating that they were unable to attend to the hearing tonight and asked to continue to January 8, 2019 Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None AZ- Motion on ZBA-2018-30 under §181.3433 to Grant the Continuance to January 8, 2019 MM – Motion Seconded Vote: 5-0 to Grant the Continuance to January 8, 2019 ZBA-2018-35 Solar Wolf Energy/Craig Caron 165 KING ST 8:10PM Continuance: Variance under §181.414 for the construction of a Solar Ground Mount leaving 18’.2 from the front property line and 17.3’ from the rear property line located in the Residential B District at 77/89/0 Petitioners had informed us that they were unable to attend to the hearing toning, and requested to have a continuance to January 8, 2019 Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None JB – Motion on ZBA-2018-35 under §181.414 to Grant the Continuance to January 8, 2019 AZ – Motion Seconded Vote: 5-0 to Grant the Continuance to January 8, 2019 ZBA-2018-23 Roberto Fernandez 27 GAGE ST 8:20PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling with stacked parking spaces located in the Residential B District at 31/111/0 Presentation given by Roberto Fernandez stating that as a right now he is just ready to wrap things up and go for a two-family dwelling, so he can start working on it. He tried very hard to work with the parking but it didn’t happen, so he is ready to move forward. He has already submitted parking plan showing adequate parking for the 2-family consideration. AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-23 to amend the petition from 3-family to 2-family dwelling JB – Motion Seconded Vote: 5-0 to Accept the Amendment Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – Response from the Police Department stating that they have a major parking concern, limited off street parking. Response from Board of Health stating that Mr. Fernandez is under multiple violations with them - RF – That’s was when he obtained the property, but he been trying to obtain the Special Permit first so he can address all those issues. Initially he was trying to have those units occupied and then he noticed those violations and therefore is still unoccupied. AZ – So, is no one living there right now? RF – No 5 LM – Drove by and noticed a car on the property earlier – RF – Well, that’s the neighbor, he knows them and allow them to park at his property – LM – So, are you familiar with those violations? RF – He was away for couple days because his grandma passed and he just came back to address everything, just waiting to see the Board decide tonight LM – So, you are agree to go with the 2-family? RF – Yes – LM – But, you don’t have a certified parking plan, and the Board also would have to see some plans on how are you going to have the units set-up, such how are you going to be eliminating kitchen, and/or whatever you need to remove to convert it from the 3-family to a 2-family - RF – How it is, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor, so the easy way for him is to remove what he needs to remove from the 3rd floor and may be a part of the 2nd floor unit MM – Well, he doesn’t think that the Board will be against that part of the 3rd floor be utilize for extra space on another unit or as tenant storages. Typically on this case what the Board does, if it was a 3-family and is going down to a 2-family, the Board is seeking to have the 3rd unit de-commissioned so it doesn’t build up as soon is everything is done – RF – yeah AZ – On his opinion that the Board can approve it with the submitted parking plan, because there are two spaces on the front and on the back regardless of the configurations petitioner did, there is plenty space to create the extra parking that’s needed – RF – Right, concern on parking. How to be measure, can that information be find online? AZ – Yeah, but you could take a picture from our City Ordinance book so you can see – RF – oh, great thank you Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – He is okay approving it as a two so he can start doing some work on the property to make it habitable, and pull whatever permits he needs from the Building Department. Have him for review later on, and to submit a final plans on how exactly he is going to divide floors and parking set-up at that time MM – He would like to see decommission the 3rd floor unit and pave parking LM – This is not an owner occupied property and on her opinion parking should be stripe and tenant designated AZ – Also, would be okay to make sure 2nd floor unit no to be occupied until 3rd floor removal been complete LM – Electrical meter to be removed, and final parking plan to be submitted from an engineer MM – Kitchen and bath to be removed LM – How about to come back on April AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-23 under §181.3561 to Approved the Special Permit with Conditions: 1. Electrical meter to be removed for the 3rd floor unit 2. Parking to be pave, stripe and accordingly assigned 3. Second floor unit not to be occupied until 3rd floor unit is decommissioned and approved by Building Department 4. Review to April 9, 2019 5. Floor and final certified parking plan to be submitted at that time JB – Motion Seconded Vote: 5-0 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions ZBA-2018-36 Erlian Lu 479 WATER ST 8:30PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 4-family dwelling located in the Central Business District at 96/5/0 Presentation given by Erlian Lu stating that she couldn’t find alternatives for parking on the property. So, she would like to ask to the Board if it’s possible to rehabilitate it as 3-family with the 3 parking spaces. Which at the time she bought it she obtained as a 4-family dwelling Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None AZ – With those numbers of parking the most it could be 2-family – EL – But, again as a landlord experience she noticed that 1-bedroom apartments are more tentative to the public then 2 or 3-bedrooms. LM – At the time you were here last we explained to you that there were only 3-parking spots, the house is tied to the road and to the next property and there is not access to the back, which isn’t any land on the back to create parking. So, you have 3-parking spots and its required 2-parking per unit which isn’t possible to reinstate it as a 3-family with the number of parking – EL – But one bedroom only AZ – We know you are saying one bedroom, but here is a thing. Saying he lives in one unit and is just him with his wife, they are renting this a one-bedroom apartment, but they have 2-vehicles, so a one-bedroom isn’t guarantee that is only going to be 6 one car per unit – EL – Okay, she understand – AZ – He just wanted to make it clear that this is a situation in Fitchburg where people rent a 1-bedroom apartment with one car parking and later on, they ended parking their 2nd car on the street – EL - Oh, okay understand MM – Mrs. Lue you are a professional and you have mention that you own 30 other properties approximately – EL – Yes, 30 other Units – MM - He visited one of those property off Arlington St., because you had mentioned that you are going to make a great investment on this property and make it beautiful, and after looking your Arlington St., property he was less impressed, “lets say that” –EL – Okay – MM – However, he knows that when this property was first built it was a single- family, he looked at photos online of the property and somebody obviously did take bedrooms and line-up a sink, a refrigerator and stove and called it a kitchen. Based on the lot size and size of the building he will be more than happy to grant and reinstate this property as a single-family dwelling, but not a two, not a three and not at four units, because there is not land and is not parking. Now he heard her talking about affordable housing and small units, Fitchburg has a bundle of both, so we are trying to create quality housing and not just housing that is there for the investor to invest as little as possible and make as much as possible. So, he is absolutely not on favor on this petition after visiting the property at Water St. twice – EL – That’s okay JB – He won’t go for anything more than a single-family, there is two parking and possibly a #3 parking space nothing more LM – Just so you understand that you only can have one descending vote, there are 5 members voting this evening you can only have one negative vote, you need 4 on the positive and right now you already have 2 saying that they are not in favor for a two, three or the four-family. Would you like to reinstate this as a single-family? EL – No, she thinks that a single family is more for an owner occupied and she does not intent to live in it. Also, single family are great in the residential area, but this is in a commercial zoning district. LM – If you want to reinstate a single-family home, which is better than reinstating nothing because is going to sit there and be abandoned – EL – Well, thank you, but she thinks that she may sue the whoever sold it to her – LM – You need to understand that is a busy road and people backing-out, so you can’t have multiple cars backing out on the road like that. So that’s doesn’t mean that we don’t want your invest in Fitchburg, we want you to invest here, but you needed to do your homework and you didn’t do that when you bought this unfortunately – EL – Its okay, people make mistake and we learn down on the road – LM – So, would you like to reinstate this and amend your petition to a single-family dwelling? EL – No LM – Response from the Police Department stating that there is a major parking concern with a limited off-street parking. No comments from other departments, but usually when the Police Department comments is because is a safety issue, just so you understand that – EL – Okay – LM – Do you have anything else to add? EL – On her own opinion this is commercial zoning and who would want to live in a single-family on that zone, “no one” – LM – She disagreed with you and she’s sorry that you think that way, because as Real Estate Agent she did sold a single-family home not to far from there - EL – Oh, okay – LM – So, she thinks that’s possible for you Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JM – He can’t see a two or three-family with only 3 possible parking spots, no a possibility MM – Couple of things, primarily the building has the appearance that originally when it was build it was a single-family. There is no yard for the occupants and no available land for off street parking, so for all those things he won’t vote in favor of the petition JB – He is not going to vote in favor because is not parking LM – Based on the safety concern from the Police Department, also she felt that this was a single-family home right from the beginning because the size of the house and no accurate parking MM- Motion on ZBA-2018-36 under §181.3561 to Approved the Special Permit AZ – Motion Seconded Vote: 0-5 Special Permit DENY Anonymously 4. MISCELLANEOUS 5. ADJOURNMENT 7