Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – June 11, 2019 SENIOR CENTER, 14 WALLACE AVE 1. Call to Order LM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL 2. Communications LM ATTENDANCE: LM, MM, AZ, JB & JS 3. Hearings CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2018-37 Craig Twohey 70-72 FALULAH ST 7:00PM Continuance Review of a 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 was given by Craig Twohey and Kenneth Godfrey stating that everything been taking progress, presented some picture to the Board showing progress “Exhibit A”. We believe that we had addressed all those conditions you had asked for, and we brought some pictures. We have been working madly to complete everything done by tonight, 2 garage door, walk-way, the whole parking area steps and everything else you asked. We still have few things to complete in the interior, but we believe that is something that the building inspector will take care of, prior issue the Certificated of Occupancy permit. Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None MM – Just a quick question on the stair steps: did you removed the old steps? CT – Those front steps were complete removed and we had brand new replace – MM – One or both? CT – Both – MM – Okay MM- Did you put new siding on the back of the house? CT – Yes – MM – And you said that you were going to paint the porches too – CT – Yes, we did LM – Lets review those conditions: All exterior deck, porches and stairs to be stained and painted (Check); front concrete stairs and walkway and on the right side to be replace (Check); Garage side and overhead doors to be replaced (Check); Certified parking plan submitted at March review. AZ – No questions its looks like everything is complete JS – No question JB – No question, he visited the property and he saw everything looks great KG – We also put a brand new services in, code compliance which states that you can’t have a meter inside the building. Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – He’s happy, it’s nice to see it when someone check all the boxes that we asked for MM – As long if all conditions had been satisfied, he is good JB – He’s all good and on favor LM – She’s too, she thinks that this is a truth 3-family that petitioner brought back to life and its looks great. So, the only suggestion she has for whoever make the motion to stripe the review AZ – Yeah, and also stripe condition #5 to not to be occupied, sold, or transferred prior to all conditions being met AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-37 under §181.3561 to Approved the Review striping condition #6 and amending condition #5 to read: 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 was submitted and approve at the March review 5. All prior conditions as having been met JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approved the Review with the following conditions: ZBA-2019-01 Kenneth Godfrey 220-222 ALBEE ST 7:10PM 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 A-2 District at 121/11/0 Presentation was given by Kenneth Godfrey and Craig Twohey stating that they have an agreement on the property to be sell as two family, still on process and hopefully by the end of this month we will know for sure if the deal went through LM – What’s the parking plant? KG – We have a parking plan as a three family – LM – Okay, is just so we can see it – KG – He has already spoke to the Building Department and they said that to make it as a two family just come to see them and we will go from there – LM – But she thought that the Board had told the petitioner to stripe the front ones. Or how are you going to do it for the two-family? – KG – He didn’t have it with him at the time – LM – Could you just mark those parking spots on the original parking plan, so we can accept it – KG – That’s is for a three-family – LM – As a two- family, so we will know what parking will be – KG – Well, as a two-family he doesn’t need the special permit and that’s his point – LM – Well, we want to make sure, because base on previous talking we had mentioned that we weren’t okayed to have at front – KG – Well, on that case he would get on hold of the Building Department to find out what do they required – LM – Well is going to be 4 parking spaces – KG – Right, and he believes that there are 4 spaces already, but let me confirm with the Building Department first and see what they want MM – What are we here on this? He thought that you continue on this because you were thinking on selling it as a two family – KG – He is, and doesn’t think that he has a reason to come before to this board if he is going to sell it as a two- family – MM – Okay, so what is the Chair Person question: are you asking about parking? - LM - Yes – MM – For this case – LM – Yes, Putting it this way if his deal falls apart and he wants to convert it into a two-family, still wants to continuance converting it. Are you going to come back to us and ask to a three-family again? – KG – That’s a possibility, but he is not planning on this deal to fall apart – LM – Okay, but you said you didn’t know, you said that this deal could possible fall apart – KG – If it does, he would come back with plan for 6 cars – LM – That’s why she is saying if he withdrawn his petition – KG – No, he doesn’t want to withdrawal it yet MM – So, you just should sign another extension and lets move – KG – Yeah, that’s sounds fair enough JB – Good enough to him too Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – So, at this point you don’t want give any information to the Building Commissioner about the parking? MM – Well, we are not granting anything and – LM – Okay – MM – If something allow by the matter of right them we don’t have to put any input, because we can’t any conditions – LM – Alright, she’s disagree she thinks that the Board can AZ – Please correct me if I am wrong: He thinks that we are hearing is that, if this deal does go through, he is going straight to the Building Department to expedite the process. This law just got through last year, which wouldn’t come through us and we couldn’t put any conditions on that – LM – Okay – MM – but are if they are more than fifty per cent of rehab – AZ – No, if they met the first set of conditions it doesn’t need 2 MM – We could talk through this all night if there nothing here tonight lets him go away do his thing get it needs to be and if doesn’t work out he will come back to see us and them we can talk about it JB – Great idea LM – Okay, and how long do you want an extension for? KG – To the next month meeting –LM – Okay AZ – Motion on ZBA-2019-01 under §181.3561 to Continue under agreement until July 9, 2019 MM – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approved the Continuance to July 9, 2019 ZBA-2014-11 Sean Morrison 76 SUMMER ST 7:20PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313C10B to allow Open-Air Restaurant Sales located in the Residential C District at 70/30/0 LM – First call, no one was present on the audience for this hearing LM – She haven’t seeing this open – JB – He has – LM – Just recently – JB – Yes, as recently last week – LM – Okay, they always been on good condition – JB – Yeah Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – We have some conditions on this LM – Reads to verify conditions: Hours will be 11:00AM – 4:00PM Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday & Sunday – Wednesday from 11:00AM – 9:00PM – Friday and Saturday re-open from 9:00PM thru 2:00AM One review – June 2019 Must be owner operated not leased – We don’t know about that No plastic or vinyl banners – there aren’t Not to be operated as a nuisance – We haven’t get any complaints or any that we are aware off Will meet all requirements from Building, Board of Health, Police, Safety and any other City Department as requested Special Permit will terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of the business from Sean Morrison – Well, she thinks that there are two things that the Board can’t decide on. So, we should follow it to next month LM – Did we sent him a note? Secretary – Yes, we did, but for some reason we got return mail on it – LM – But he owns that building AZ – Personally, he thinks if just for those place conditions, rather than building base conditions and we hadn’t got any complaints about violations. He just assume move it – LM – Right but one condition we did said is not to be lease and we can’t just assume if that Sean there MM – Just move it to next month LM – She thinks to have a continuance till July will be the best AZ – Motion on ZBA-2014-11 under §181.313C10B to Continue on July 9, 2019 MM – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Continuance to July 9, 2019 ZBA-2017-10 JMC Apartments, LLC 234 DANIELS ST 7:30PM Review of Conditions on a Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 2-family dwelling located in the Residential B District at 77/15/0 Presentation was given by Jose Mendez stating that the project has been finally complete. What was left it was striping parking, siding and stairway and petition show some picture on his phone after completion LM – Everything going good with the building? – JM – Yeah, he gets his rent and hopefully by the end of the year he will get wrap the whole top with metal – LM – Well, it looks better than it did at the beginning LM – Any questions for us? JM – No MM – Maybe we just reads the conditions and we can check if been satisfy – LM – Sure; condition #1 Review June 11, 2019 #2 Stain stairway to be complete at time of Review – No plywood or Equivalent #3 And parking to be stripe MM – So, that stairway and all that has been stained? – JM – They talk about the part going down to the basement, which was the part he did plywood and that is the part that the Board wanted to see siding, that’s done 3 Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – Board members any questions JS – Nope MM – He had the impression that we would going to have all that staircases – JM – All that is stained from previous and that was not what it brought up from the Board – MM – But all that is wood – JM – No is not, that’s the original wood from the building, if you want to go back to look at it – MM – He was there today – JM – And he owns the building – MM – He knows he does – JM – The back upstairs all done and the only that was brought up here it was the stairs going into the basement and the stripe on the parking lot; also paving the parking lot. It was pave, the siding is done and striped. Eventually he would do more updates on the building, but he just can’t right now. However all the Board was asked for is completed JB – No LM – She did have any questions either Hearing Closed: Deliberations: AZ – He is good, he means that there are a lot other things that he would love to see done to it, he could, but as far those we put as conditions they been satisfy LM – She thinks that was the end of it, she also thinks that as home owner he knows what to he needs to do MM – Yeah, he did a great job, but specifically we did talk about the staircase being stain because the wood is pretty bad; but he is okay. He has been good coming many times LM – She agrees AZ – Motion on ZBA-2017-10 under §181.3561 to Approve the Review deeming conditions been satisfy and striking condition #1 to read as follow: 1. All conditions had been met 2. Stain stairway to be complete at time of Review—NO PLYWOOD OR EQUIVALENT 3. Parking to be striped JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Review with Conditions ZBA-2016-31 Active Life Health Care Management/Valdimir Giterman 783 WATER ST 7:40PM Review of Conditions placed upon a Special Permit under §181.313B5 to conduct an Adult Day Care Center located in the Industrial District at 122/23/0 LM – Would you like to start reviewing conditions if you like? – VG – Sure, he kind the knows them by hart, since that he been on review many times – LM - #1 Plan for garden and vegetation was submitted on February 19, 2019 and was accepted. Everything is going okay with that? – VG – We find out that the building is not fully occupied and he spoke to the Fun Staff owner and they been wanted to do some work outside also to bring some neat appearance to the lot. We obviously wanted to do something as well just for making the business looks better, landlord has not been cooperating too much with us. In addition to this the building has been sold, the offer has been accepted and he also has talk to the new owner and he is basically saying that he wants to make the place great. – LM – When is the new owner happens? – VG – He doesn’t know that part, because they have part of the lease was the letter of the first refusal on the business sell, so the owner of the building show them a letter with the accepted offer. He knows who the new is and he has talk to him. On addition to this they kind did a lot on their own, they found couple volunteers to clean up the space as show on some picture “Exhibit A”. Did some painting with the owner permission, they a mirror on the back wall, so he is improving as much as he could because as a now we are king on limbo – LM – Right, you don’t want to spend too much money if you don’t know the status of it – VG – Right, and the people who volunteer they are willing to do some work outside for us as well, but with the sale of the building we kind the stuck on middle because we don’t know what it will be permitted. The new owner of the building is also the business owner of “La Reina Bakery”, and he knows that when he took the over that business they painted that side, so he really did try to make look that side of the building looks neater, so it seems to care about the building. So, he doesn’t have full reason to believe that he won’t take care the entire building. He feels like he can’t really do his part on the outside of the lot, he has put some planting outside of his business entrance. 4 MM – So, the Bakery owner is buying the building? – VG – Yes, according with the offer papers he saw – MM – Okay – So, we are doing a little at our end, like this week we had control over this part of the building where we are, so we been doing some minor staff here and there with our cleaning crew, we asked them to clean the entire parking lot. They spend the whole Saturday day and did a lot of work LM – Did the previous owner knew that you did the mirror in the back – VG – Yes MM – Do want to give a couple months continuance, so that would allow the petitioner to get things settle with the new owner Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – Well let’s go through the list anyway and see: condition #4 Hours of operation: 7:00AM to 4:00PM Monday to Friday and 7:00AM to 2:30 PM Saturday – VG – Correct – LM – Nothing on Sunday – VG – No – LM – Okay, do you need to adjust those at all? – VG – We may consider to open Sundays, maybe in a couple of months, so if we can adjust that. He doesn’t know how big of a deal is to do it, we may open-up same as Saturday hours – LM – Well if we are giving a continuance probably till September. Would you like to changes those hours them or doing it now? So, you would know more for solid plan – VG – Let’s do it now just in case – LM – Okay, and what are you looking for? – VG – The same hours as Saturday – LM – 7:00am to 2:30PM – VG - 7:00am to 2:30PM – LM – Okay, so you said you need couple months so you can come back on September – VG – Honestly he doesn’t know what he can do at his part with the parking lot and/or the building. He knows that the Fun Staff owners they want to do something to the parking lot, but apparently they kind have some roofing issues that they are dealing with and with the new owner they put that on hold. He just feels if he does something in front of his building its not going to look nice because he thinks that the landlord needs to take control over the whole parking lot, because if he start doing his own things and the Fun Staff do theirs, so we start doing blue and they do green and the owner does something else. That’s why he wants to keep it just small, so it would matter what the landlord is going do, his planning are going to be in small containers. MM – What’s the Board opinion on have the petitioner come back on April? We all know that he has done very good job and everyone there are doing good job, because the fall he doesn’t thinks that’s a good time to start landscaping – AZ – Well he thinks that’s still mostly summer, but his concern is just that when we put condition #1 in placed on the first place, if he recalls that correctly that was with the sore of cooperation of the prior owner. He also thinks that the petitioner is right, he is not sure if the Board can really full him to do a particular beautification plan in the absent of an agreement from the owner and the owner is not in front of us, so we don’t have any power to place conditions on him. So, personally he would say that giving the “A” that the petitioner had meet a very clear effort to do everything that was ask to do and more. “B” we have decent evidence that the new owner is likely to maintain the property in good condition LM – Her suggestion is to move this case to September and hopefully the transaction is done, and the new owner can come and make some commitments with us. And that will help the petitioner a long way too – VG – He could, but he only concern is that because last time when he did not know about the sale of the building, which he try to get the owner into the hearing because partially he doesn’t want to beautified the parking lot without a consent and pay for it – JB – He totally understand his reasons – VG – From the last review he has tries to bring the owner in and try to work together, but he just hasn’t cooperate at all – LM – But that was the last owner – VG – Yeah, but he doesn’t have control over the new owner and may just going to say that he doesn’t feel like – LM – Well, that’s okay if you comeback on September – VG – Okay, he is just trying to be open with the Board and make things clear – LM – Yeah, we understand and we would like to give him our picture of what we would like to see, because that’s a gateway into our City, so we like to tell him what are our expectations are beautifying that exterior – VG – He totally understand what’s the Board coming from, all is he saying is that he doesn’t have control over it, he is going to be glad to be in September meeting MM – kindly invite your landlord, that’s all LM- She can recommended that when our secretary send out to make a note to the new landlord joint us at the meeting as well AZ – He would suggested to be noted on the record that if for whatever reason the new owner is not cooperating or the sells doesn’t go through them we give the condition to be discharge at the next meeting – LM – We will deal with that when it’s come, but we can note that on the minutes AZ – Motion on ZBA-2016-31 under §181.313B5 to Amend condition #4 and #5, and to Continue the Review to September 10, 2019 with conditions: 1. Plan for garden and vegetation submitted on February 19, 2019 has been accepted 2. Per plan submitted previously 5  3. Not to be operated as nuisance 4. Hours of Operation: 7:00AM to 4:00PM Monday to Friday 7:00AM to 2:30PM Saturday and Sunday 5. Review September 10, 2019 6. Sunset Clause – Special Permit will expire/terminate upon the sale/transfer of lease or in the event that such as lease is unable to be negotiated with Active Life Health Care Management. JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Amend conditions ZBA-2019-14 Miguel Costa 44 GLORIA AVE 7:50PM Special Permit under §181.355 to erect a 28’ x 24’ garage with attached mudroom and a 12’ x 20’ deck leaving 34.8’ to the front yard and 25.3’ to the rear yard property lines located in the Residential A-1 District at 156/20/0 Presentation was given by Miguel Costa and Laura Paquin stating that they are looking to build an addition to have an accessible bathroom for her mom, and a large garage which eventually will have a ramp because sometimes she needs wheelchair right now she is able walk. Currently is dangers for her to go downstairs and she also can’t walk on the grass at home, so that will help to keep her out in the yard. The house that they had in Fitchburg they just sold in the fall have a ramp on the front and a deck on the back, so she we were able to take her in and out and in case of emergency is very difficult to take her out. They been reside in Fitchburg for over 35 years and owned a house on Shea Street, which is was more accessible to Mrs. Costa, but it was very hard to maintained due to the property dimension. So, now we are just trying to make this house more comfortable and to provide a better quality life to Mrs. Costa. Planning to install like a handicap ramp so his wife can enjoy life Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None MM – Don’t have any question JB – He doesn’t have any questions either, Michael and he visited the property and it should be done for her AZ – No questions, he thinks that this case it seems very straight forward JS – No, no questions LM – So, for the facade of the property and the addition is going to be keeping with the rest of the house on the neighborhood – LP – Yes, absolutely will be keeping with the rest of the neighbor house – LM – She doesn’t really have any questions or problems with it, the neighbor next door to the right it has a 2 car garage, the one father to the right has one car garage and across street. So, is definitely going with the rest of the neighborhood AZ – Is the deck cover? LP – No Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – He thinks it does meet the criteria, he only wants to understand better and has a question about the deck we are changing the setbacks on the rear right? AZ – Yes – MM – Just wants to make sure that we do this right, so what section under 181.355 what are we referring into specifically – AZ – The subsection of the 181.355 are conditions for the Building Commissioner to look up and if it meets all those conditions, so is not deems to be increasing non-conformity and it doesn’t need a Special Permit. If it’s only encroaching one level of those condition them will come to us, and the only one we need to look up is the one on number paragraph at the bottom it says: The proposed modification will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure – MM – Okay, perfect and thank you LM – Any conditions that the Board thinks? – MM – No, he thinks it should be approved as plan submitted – LM – Great, agreed JB – He is all for it AZ – Yes, the front setback is just to keeping the existing nonconformity, the rear setback is only adds a couple of feet’s because the uncovered deck doesn’t count for setbacks. So, we are only looking for a minimum nonconforming LM – She is also agree with everyone else and it meets the Special Permit criteria MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-14 under §181.355 to Approve the Special Permit as requested per plan submitted JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Special Permit 6 ZBA-2019-15 Brian LeClair 0 FISHER RD 8:05PM Variance under §181.961 to construct a single-family dwelling with less than the lot width required by section §181.414 for a Residential B District at 68/11/0 Presentation was given by Brian LeClair and Nick Pauling civil engineer stating that he is represented Mr. LeClair and we are here asking for a Variance relief for the minimum lot requirement. What we have is a parcel as you can see on the plan and is a parcel on west side in the Fisher Road, the lot was original created on 1921 on the middle of years stays on the family. A small part has broken out the last shock of land that was broke out was on 1978, when that was broken out what happened is creating a narrow on an existing property which is 19.5 feet. This area from Fisher Road goes down and slope down and it’s a wet land area. He spoke with the Building Inspector and the triangle portion qualify as far as area lot shape it has a buildable area, but unfortunately we can’t put a house up there. So, we are proposing is to put a house father back on the up-land portion of the property, however the way the lot is requirement from the Zoning we have to maintain the minimum lot front the frontage through the property to the front face of the dwelling, so what happen is that the existing narrow on 1924 doesn’t comply to it, so that’s are we asking for Those Seeking Information: Lloyd Wentzell of 176 Fisher Road he has been living there for 12 years and he was told that this is unbuildable property because of the wet land, so basically, he is on opposition too because all those trees that they are going to tore down will affect the neighborhood surrounding. Unfortunately he is not a lawyer so, he doesn’t know how to fight a case like this, but this propose it doesn’t make any sense to him Christine Fagone of 162 Fisher Road living here for 11 years and she is also an abutter and she is also against this petition there is a very wet land. She is not sure how are they planning to create the driveway, but she doesn’t thinks that this petition is a good idea, as far as she knows during the spring time there is at times water or small stream that runs from Richardson Rd., through the proposed lot site and down to a pond on the land of Bryan LeClair. Do you know where are they planning to put the driveway? LM – Is not on the plan, do you know that information – NP – It’s not on the plan on the application, but he can said that they own a property to the north, and the Special Permit that we will refer to obtain a common driveway is of Ashby State Rusell Foster of 115 Ashby State Road he been there for 25 years and if the Board approves this is going to cause a lot of damage to those existing house. He still gets water on his sala. His question to the Board tonight is: If you granted the Variance tonight what is the next step? If you grant a variance does this person has the right to just start building, or does this person has to go to planning and also has to go at front to Conservation? To him this petition it most has to go to conservation – AZ – We have a letter from the Building Commissioner and does affirm that it needs a Variance from us and also need Special Permit from Planning and the from Conservation. So, basically the issue regarding Conservation and engineering that been identify those would be doubt by other city bodies, that is not what we will do -RF - Right, he figure, but he is totally agree with all his neighbor and he is at opposite side, but this is not a buildable lot, and he is here because he wants to protect his property Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None LM – Would you be putting Septic or Town Sewer? – NP – Town Sewer JS – She doesn’t like it, she doesn’t think is buildable MM – These two lot you purchase together – NP – That’s correct – MM – Okay, and is there a house on one of this – NP – No, that’s vacant piece of property as well – MM – So, both piece are vacant – NP – Correct – MM – And you got frontage on Ashby State, and how much. You can throw a dart, its 100 or 200 – NP – A little over 52 – MM – And both lot purchase simunstanlly – NP – Yes – MM – So, is no house here, no house on any of the property that you own here – NP – No, they are vacant piece properties – MM – But you are looking for a common driveway – NP – Nope, we are here asking for Variance for lot requirement, and what we want do is to build two house on two individual parcel – MM – Okay when you said a common driveway that’s why he asked the question, but he understand why they are here – NP – 100% Agree, and the common drive will only come into place if the Variance is granted – MM – Okay AZ – So, speaking briefly about some mandatory conditions for the Variance, are you familiar with those or you want him to read them off to the petitioner? – NP – Please read them – AZ – Mandatory findings. Before the grant of any variance from the requirements of this chapter, the Board of Appeals must specifically find that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the Zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve substantially hardship, financial or otherwise, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial 7 detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this chapter – NP – So, this lot has deem unbuildable lot by the Zoning enforcement officer, haven’t the minimum require frontage and lot area and also has a shape and existing shape which prohibit to place the house in the desire location. Due the other factors soil specifically in the front area that is been deem large enough when are you apply the setbacks, soil prevent us for putting the structure there, that why we need the Variance to put it elsewhere. So, what happens if you deny the variance you making what is been deem a buildable lot unbuildable, so the hardship will be that we will be losing a buildable lot JS – If the Building Inspector said is a buildable lot you weren’t be here looking a Variance, so that’s not a buildable lot – NP – So, variance was requested is the width from minimum require lot to the propose building location – JB – So, is not a buildable lot because you are seeking a variance AZ – He thinks what is he saying is a buildable lot meet all the requirements, but he wants to put the house here rather than over here, and the location he could build without the Variance is not a desirable to build – JS – And you been paying taxes as buildable lot? – NP – Not aware – LM – She thinks is unbuildable when she looks it up JS – She is disagreed that is a buildable lot MM – He look it as not a buildable lot because it needs a variance, at least you can tell me that is a buildable lot without a variance – NP – Is a buildable lot – MM - without a variance – NP – Yes, meeting the requirement of the zoning bylaw – MM – Could you explained how – NP – We could put the house up on the triangle – JB – On the middle of the wet land you are going to build a house – NP – That’s a conservation issue not a Zoning issue – JB – It is when you are dealing in his City and sitting in front of his Board, it’s his issue – MM – Okay, so you just said is that is buildable lot and you can’t put the house on that specific location – NP – In compliance with the Zoning by Law which are enforce by the Zoning officer – MM – Okay Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JS – She doesn’t think that’s a buildable lot and doesn’t believe it meets the criteria for a Variance MM – Lissening to all the information and he doesn’t feel that it meets all the criteria for Variance under 181, the applicant demonstrating that they have the ability to build on the lot, there is not hardship demonstrated financially or through topography JB – He is agreed with Michael AZ – So, we need to be clear on what we are desiring versus other board desiring. So, he wants to mention that all decision we are making is based on the variance on the lot, so as far of hardship goes, it will be hardship to locate the house in the place that they could locate it without the variance because it will require significantly more engineering to place on the wet ground on that. So, he sees a hardship and he thinks is really clearly related to the soil and the topography, but he is not saying is a good idea. However based on all the information and findings we collected toning he thinks it meets the requires and he will be on favor to grant the Variance MM – Motion ZBA-2019-15 under §181.961 to Grant the Variance as requested AZ – Motion Seconded Vote 1–4 to Grant the Variance Variance DENY ZBA-2019-16 William Thomas 0 HIGH ROCK RD 8:20PM Appeal to Overrule the Building Commissioner’s decision to deny a building permit for a single family dwelling due to a previous zoning merger under §181.9223 in a Rural Residential District at 79R/40/B1 LM – The petitioner had asked for a continuance on this petition until July because he was unable to attend tonight AZ – Do we have a writing request? – LM – Yes, we do MM – Do we need a mutual agreement – LM – We can’t they aren’t here AZ – Motion on ZBA-2019-19 under §181.9223 to Approve the Continuance to July 9, 2019 under agreement expressed via email JB – Motion Seconded Vote 4–1 to Approve the Continuance to July 9, 2019 8 ZBA-2019-17 Efrain O’Neil 23 SUMMER ST 8:35PM Special Permit under §181.3314 to preserve a storage of shipping container next to the driveway located on Industrial Zoning District at 57/7/0 Special Permit under §181.3314 to preserve a storage of shipping container next to the driveway located on Industrial Zoning District at 57/7/0 Presentation was given by Efrain O’Neil and Brandon O’Neil stating that they got notify about having a shipment container, they had the shipping container from about twelve years ago. They never had a complaint or hear anything about it, until they received a letter saying that it’s an illegal to have it on site. On the letter also suggested somethings that they could do like to obtain a special permit to keep it, they were considered to build a fence to cover it up, this is something that they use to keep their tools since that they both are professional builders. This is a historical property building and they try to keep it as it is LM – Are you running the business from there? EO - No – LM – So, if you are willing to build a fence, how could you do that because that’s you parking area? EO – It will be right behind the parking area, they measure it and is about 30’ feet from the sidewalk or even more, so they have plenty of room to build the fence. Basically, they can wrap around and maybe painting it. they really appreciate that is a historically property, which is why they try to keep it look neat, and they understand is one main street, so they understand that for people going by seems the container it could be an eyesore. they are really willing to comply with anything that it make Fitchburg looks better, and over the years they try to keep the property as clean as he could, that’s why they obtained the container because they don’t have a garage, no storage, nowhere to put their tools. LM – It this storage container is a temporary? EO – No, they want to keep it. If anyone wants to visit the trailer, he could open it up, so you can see how organize it is – LM – And you couldn’t do that with a shed? EO – No, for the tools they have it can call industrial ladders and many other tools and behind the property are industrial properties, so, we don’t think it will be detrimental to the neighborhood Those Seeking Information: None Those Opposed: None Those In Support: Deborah Lafleur representing Moran Square Realty, we own a property that is adjacent to the petitioner property and we know them for a long time, we been neighbors for very long time and we are not oppose to the petition – LM – So, you on support on the petition? D – Yeah, she is not against them, but if have it fence and clean it out because their property is a beautiful property – LM - But you are agree that is not the most beautiful thing in the neighborhood – D- Well, she had driven hundreds of times and never really focus on the container myself. But of course, she is interested in to see the neighborhood improvement MM – Your property has lines, and your neighborhood has lines -BO – That’s correct – MM – These are residential properties and they are historic building and he can’t pass and allow this to be there he really can’t. He has gone by the property for years he goes by almost every day, for many years was a lot construction material storage outside, so it’s a gateway and we are trying to make Fitchburg a better place. He is more on favor on a garage on an architectural structure, but an industrial box and we have two of them that body each other. He really would like to see a better methodology, you are on the business and he understand you need to be running your business, but you almost sounds like you storing stuff for your construction on site – BO – Isn’t exactly a construction because we are not doing big houses – MM – He knows and he understand, but again he has gone by the house many times and heard so many people comment about those shipping containers. Its residential property, what always do he pretend that he lives next door to any case come before the Board and he definitely not want a container on a property abutter of mine, because is devalue its. And you made a great presentation with regards with the fence, but you are not going to be able to hide that. - EO – He believe that’s on your mind not what you see – MM – Is an industrial box on a residential property – BO – What if not visible to the public – MM – He is just trying to give some feedback that is going to be another ways to obtain what you need for storage JB – He doesn’t have any questions; he just doesn’t like that idea of those containers on those properties – EO – The next- door neighbor did mention that he is may read of it – BO – And unfortunately he does a lot of construction, he goes to Boston every day and unfortunately he brings a lot of those material back to his property 9 MM – Just that he can get a perspective if he is looking the two house yours is on the left? BO – Ours is on the right and is mostly cover up by the trees. The neighbor is the one is red and is 100% exposed LM – So, just to clarify that on the agenda it said that this property is in the Industrial Zoning District, but on the letter doesn’t indicate that. However, because we are talking about a residential use property AZ – Well, if we don’t it on the letter, we would have to assume what the agenda says is correct about the Zoning District – LM – Well, that’s is just the agenda. The agenda is not findings – AZ – No, he just means that we don’t have any other information to verify to make the decision – LM – She doesn’t thinks that we don’t need to address it – MM – And even the house is in Industrial zone the use is residential – LM – The use is residential, it’s a 2-family home right? BO – Yes, two-family JS – As a Michel saying to the zoning again, there are zoning district begins and them ends. And she think that there are by-laws and if the Board allows it, there will be others looking to have the same equipment industrial equipment to have on the residential properties – BO – We complete understand, but we have it for so long – JS – right, feeling that it should be grandfather in because you have this use for that long, and she’s not necessary agree with that, but she thinks they could look into that – BO – Just don’t know what we could use to save his materials – JS - As the Chair says there are Sheds, there other material other architectural structures that can be used to replace this industrial equipment LM – Maybe you could find a location where you can keep your work equipment – EO – That’s why we been trying saving money not pay against a rental, he can invest into the house to make it more beautiful, and make more beautiful and acceptable for the City. And that’s what he been trying to do, is hasn’t been easy to make the house look 300 years old, every time to replace a piece of wood to make the same way that they use to make it, that’s take a lot of time and tools. But if he has to pay for this and other expenses, and if the property goes down you are not going to help us with that – LM – She has renovated a lot of properties and she understand where petitioner is going AZ – First of all, how long has been there? He knows that it was mentioned before but what to confirm – EO – 12 years – AZ – Ashly that’s a legal non-conforming them, 10 years is the period for that. It state on the book that anything that has been non-conforming for 10 years or more without enforcement action on that time period become legal non-conforming – JS – Well, let’s said them if that’s the case we would like to see some proof – AZ – Totally agree that we would need to see proof – BO – Sure – AZ – The other question is how tall is the shipping container? – BO – Shipping container is a little over 9 feet - AZ – Nine, okay that will require a very tall fence, and that will require a variance – BO – Can we get a permit? – AZ – You will need a variance, so that’s the right way to go, but he gets what they are trying to do LM – Well, we all get it, but that doesn’t mean that we like it and it’s good for the neighborhood. What we have to think about is what not always good for you, it has to be good for the entire neighborhood – BO – Which is hard to understand, this is why we were looking for this alternative – She thinks that there are other out there, but you should explore on. Anyway, she is only one board member LM – We are going to close and deliberate; do you have any more to add? – BO – Yes, the whole 10 years thing if we can demonstrate that will solve that? AZ – Well, that’s completed outside of our restriction at this point, if that will prove it, you will need that particular aspect of the zoning code. Can’t be enforcement now – BO – And depending on how things are going and if we have proof then what will be the actions – AZ – We will have to figure it out, but on tonight petition we will give you an answer in just few minutes Hearing Closed: Deliberations: MM – He is a resident like the petitioner, he also has and old house, and he knows that he does a great job on the house and he appreciate it as a resident. Both properties have these containers and if we start granting them, we are going just keep seem it in the City and is a residential neighborhood it’s a gay way, which is very important, we are trying to improve the gay way. And if it been there for 12 years, it shouldn’t been address when it was put there. Petitioner should go to the building department back them; you have the logy of have it there for 12 years and he thinks that the Board has to look up what is the best for the City. So, he apologies, but he is not on favor of it JB – He can’t get over the idea that is part of his business, even that he only has his tools in there, still is part of his business. He should get a shed for his business AZ – He thinks the Board should continue this case because he thinks he doesn’t still don’t know if the 10 years applies on this case, if it is the 10 years applies we wouldn’t have choice – MM – That’s your opinion – AZ – No, that’s the law MM – So, if up to the Board if we are going to make a vote tonight, but if you have that question. Did you talk to the Building Commissioner ahead of time? – AZ – No, because he wasn’t looking up that after, he is not asking overruled his decision, he is saying this is an aspect that was not mention on the application, but now that we know it, it is irrelevant to 10 look to it – MM – So, we have a case before us tonight and he would like to vote, if the applicant feels that they are allow them they can reach out to Building Commissioner themselves. And keep on mind that this is not a structure, so we will let the Building Commissioner decide – AZ – That’s the other concern from him, what’s exactly this should be consider – MM – Well, let the Building Commissioner enforce it correctly – LM – Is not permit structure – AZ – Right, but also is not exactly storage and is not exactly parking – MM – It is a storage container that been store on the property ML – it will be like a shed, but it is been built on the front of the property that they would have to get a Variance from us, if they wanted to do that – AZ Well, if they meet all setback requirements, they wouldn’t MM – So, can we move to vote tonight and if they have some other avenues or questions, they can talk to the Building Commissioner AZ – Well, he doesn’t feel that he has enough information to make a decision – LM – That’s your opinion – AZ – No, he is just trying to see it fully, he feels if the Board were determent. He doesn’t even know what the application is for, what is the Special Permit for. Until he doesn’t know what is he doesn’t feels that the Board should vote on it – JS – Well, we should refer to this section 3314 – AZ – No, that’s what Mark said – LM – and that’s we are here to vote on it – MM - It says it right here proposing to keep an existing shipping container on the property – AZ – But that’s not an actual action, it says looking for Special Permit, but we need to know under what criteria – MM – So, are you prepare to vote or not? – AZ – Okay if we look at it 3314 then he thinks that the Board could vote on that, but he really, he wants to know what a shipping container is. Because if does come before us more than once and it doesn’t feet on those definitions, he wants to feel comfortable doing it right JS – She doesn’t think that if an Industrial Zone it’s not the point is the use is a Residential MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-17 under §181.3314 to Grant the Special Permit as requested AZ – Motion Seconded Vote 0–5 to Approve the Special Permit Special Permit DENY ZBA-2018-21 FBC19-62, LLC 126 PACIFIC ST/183 CEDAR ST/191 CEDAR ST 8:50PM Continuance for a Reconsideration: Appeal to Overrule the Building Commissioner’s Decision for the need of a Special Permit from The Planning Board under§181.752 in a Residential B District at 13/51/0, 13/50/0 & 13/48/0 LM – City Solicitor Atty. Pusateri asked to be contacted by so he can participate via phone call. So, we just call your case and it may be okay to put you on speaker? Atty. Pusateri – Yes, do you have the settlement – AZ – The settlement yes we have it on front of us – Atty. Pusateri – Did you have time the review it – LM – Can you give us an overview of what has change if anything since we agreed – Atty. Pusateri – Basically was an agreement – LM – So we have planting on the left front, we have also on the corner on the same side it’s also a ground cover in front – Atty. Pusateri – Yes, so if you start from the back to the front, so on the left hand side the property line there will be a curb side from the street way. So, we are going to leave the first parking spot open to leave enough room for the event of an emergency to leave 8ft open for access driveway. on the right hand side from the property lines is enough room for side walk and snow storage – LM – Yes, that is correct 8 feet wide from the his frontage drive way – Atty. Pusateri – Snow storage area is going to be ground cover and landscape that and that will help with drainage water off the parking lot away from the neighbor on the left hand side from the rear who was afraid about it. Parking spaces are going be gravel because of the cost, and them he thinks that’s also going to help us. Access to the rear lot of the building on the back is not parking for that building, also creating some off street parking for that building he thinks that help the City. No haven’t a share driveway zoning rules that solve a problem. And there is a lot snow storage toward to the other property we took some of those parking spot away to create a lot of snow storage area and there should be some landscape on roll stone area. So what would be do put that on for review and you may want to add to this petition a settlement agreement doesn’t matter is going be review by Zoning Board after the construction is complete – AZ – He would like to see it on review on the Zoning Board he is unclear what would could do as a review because we are not granting any permits o variance that it could be revoke – Atty. Pusateri – That is a good question – MM – Well the green space needs to be done and we are seeing a lot of case where we are granting something with conditions and the conditions hasn’t been satisfy, so what we been doing as recent is put a condition in that the permit not be granted until the work is done, but he doesn’t know how would you be handle this case – Atty. Pusateri – Surely it could be something like perhaps a review just to put it for a review and if a lack of review, or if we don’t get a kick out of it and a worse scenario bring him back and have him explained why he did do what he was agree to do so – LM – Well, all our conditions needs to meet and they have to be fully satisfy – Attn. Pusateri – 11 Well, and fail to meet any of the conditions from the zoning board they can be enforce by Building Commissioner he can site them with violation or a ticket including a violation of a $300.00 a day. And he knows that we have this historical problem at court but he thinks that with the inspectors – AZ – So, is that ashly hypothetically just because he has done settlement agreements, hypothetically is that something that you could work into the agreement specifically state that agreement term of this settlement will be enforcement by the Building Commissioner – Atty. Pusateri – Sure, and he can probably do also and take it once father and on the decision that she signs per said something to fine a $300.00 per day and that they will sign right on to it. And he will like to have that and make sure that to be note or something – LM – You want to have that install on the settlement agreement – Atty. Pusateri – Yeah, he is going to put on right in and he will also do the language for your zoning decision and he will put that into the agreement – LM – So, do you want us to vote on this evening or? – Atty. Pusateri – Either way or you just give him some information that we are on records and them you have bee satisfy with this – LM – It seems to be basically the plan that we agree on, the only input that she would said is that the petitioner needs to comeback after he is completed the project – Atty. Pusateri – So, $300.00 per day issue and them a review that you want to see the petitioner after the project is complete – LM – To see the final product – Atty. Pusateri – Do you want to set a time frame to get this done because he also wants to see it done too – LM – Yeah she would like to it done before they go back to school – Atty. Pusateri – Why we don’t put it for zoning review for September meeting – LM – That’s fine, but we want it complete before that though, she would said that we can have the review on September but we would like to see the project complete on August – Atty. Pusateri – Yeah, Zoning review September, completion? – LM – By August 20th – Atty. Pusateri – He was thinking the same thing – AZ – Sounds good – Atty. Pusateri – He like it – AZ – And them once is this is finalize will we need to take a vote to accept the settlement agreement or you will be just doing it on our behalf – Atty. Pusateri – He will be doing that ZBA-2018-23 Roberto Fernandez 27 GAGE ST 9:00PM Review of the 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 was given by Roberto Fernandez stating that he obtained a certified plot plan and floor plan. Everything is pretty much is ready to go, all he more is waiting to the Board approves his plants to start the work. MM – It’s a 3-family or a two-family because he has three floor plan – RF – He did it because you asked for floor plan and he didn’t want to miss it AZ – So, has you met condition #2 to decommission the 3rd floor unit, take out the kitchen and bathroom from the third floor – RF – He had the Building Inspector to inspect and asked him what should be removing MM – When this goes into records is a letter for the building inspector that he can inspected and see if it is as it was LM – So, what are you going to do with those rooms? – RF – For a mint time he is planning to use as a storage, right now his main concern is to have tenants. And he knows that he needs to work on the driveway and there some money that he has to spend there, so he just wants to keep focus to have this done and move on – LM – Property to be pave stripe and accordanly be assign, when do you think that will be happens -RF – As long he obtain the okay from the Board he has the people can be there and start working – LM – So you are ready to go – RF – Yes, he is ready to go – LM- Okay – RF – The inside apartments they look good – LM – Okay, so the parking plan there are two on the front and two on the back side and were you removing something? – RF – The contractor and he said that we may be able to save the deck, if doesn’t them he will cut down the deck – LM – Okay because you need 9x181/2 – RF – Yeah, so he was measurement and he said that he may be able to save it – LM – So, she thinks that we are going to be looking for another review may be on September Those Seeking Information: None Those In Support: None Those Opposed: None JS – No questions MM – No questions JB – No questions AZ – No questions Hearing Closed: Deliberations: JS – On favor 12 MM – Petitioner has done a good job; we know that it been a difficult project but he thinks at the end is going to be a good for you as well for the neighborhood and hopefully the next one is going to easy JB – Good ready to move AZ – Good he thinks that just to put in the review and good to go LM – She is agreed and she is happy and she thinks the review for September give him a little be of time so he is good to go, as least that you want to come back next month but she thinks that it may be tide for you – RF – September is good LM – So on September we are going to be looking on your parking so make sure that you got the 9x181/2 on both spots, so if you need to do whatever you have to do in there to happens – RF – Yeah, and he also has another question is he could you gravel there – LM – Is any grass there – RF – Yes there is grass – LM – She is okay with gravel and it may also it would be good for drainage MM – How far is the neighbor behind you – FR – Very close – MM – What is the space that you don’t want pave? – RF – The rear – MM – How about those on the front – RF – That’s pave – MM – How about the driveway going back – RF – That’s pave so is just will be just those two spots JB – Well, he thinks is will be okay for drainage but thinking a long way, when the fall and those leaf come down AZ – His concern is that when in wintertime that if a rock goes deep on the ground and someone wants to turn around and the wheels just spin there MM – He is good totally on favor AZ – Motion on ZBA-2018-23 to Approve the Review amending conditions #1 to add word with asphalt after the word pave and amending condition #3 to read as follow: 1. Parking to be paved with asphalt, striped and accordingly assigned 2. Second floor not to be occupied until 3rd floor unit is decommissioned and approved by the Building Department 3. Review to September 10, 2019 4. Floor and final certified parking plan to be submitted at that time MM – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Review with amended conditions ZBA-2019-11 Jackson Avenue Realty Trust 95 CLINTON ST 9:10PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.355 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 2-family dwelling located in Residential B District at 32/133/0 LM – First call, no one was present on the audience for this hearing LM – She would like to give them an opportunity, them always been very good to comeback and maybe to put them last on the agenda in case he has no interest in coming back AZ – Do we have an extension from the last time? – LM – Yes, we do – AZ – Okay MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-11 under §181.355 to Approve the Continuance to July 9, 2019 AZ – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Continuance to July 9, 2019 ZBA-2019-13 Ruth Jeanete Guzman 324 LUNENBURG ST 9:20PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.3561to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in a Central Business District at 36/15/0 Presentation was given by Ruth Guzman, Emanuel Frias and Anthony Quiles construction Consultant stating that at this time they have obtained property plot plan with a better accrue parking plan and floor plant for the all three units. Anthony after doing his research from the previous owner was trying to get a mix use, but he fails to provide adequate parking according to the City Ordinance. Current owner was trying to get a 4-family, but he also contacted the City Building Department and after his research we are agree that a 3-family will be the best fit. 13 LM – So, the intention is to have all residential units? AQ – That’s correct – LM – What will be the intention of the renovation on the exterior? AQ – Siding, but we haven’t decided or analyze what exactly at this point AZ – But it will be something like someone is doing something? AQ – Yes, we want to make it look like it something happened, that corner needs it. LM – And the condition in the interior? AQ – It’s not that bad, 1st floor is look like it was a business office, the 2nd floor is more like is going to need the kitchen and the bathroom – LM – Does the Building Commissioner has been there? AQ – Yes, he has. It looks like the house it has been a separate building or a barn, it looks like the house next door has the same similarity because it has the extraction and a barn on the back. MM – The house is going to be units up and down – AQ – That’s correct – MM – Again we have a little house on the front and you are going to have 2-units – AQ – Correct, the back house is going to be just one unit with up and down level Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Favor: None JB – Don’t have questions JS – There is no laundry room there – AQ – No – JS – What are those people going to do – AQ – Going next door – JS – How about the roof? – AQ – The roof is slate – JS – It’s gorgeous – AQ – Yes, it is, but we don’t know if we can save it. We would love to save the roof, but if we can’t we can’t AZ – Parking and yard, are you going to do all grass around or are you going to leave asphalt at the corner? AQ – We want to cut part of it to make it desirable LM – And you said you are not sure if are going to do vinyl siding – AQ – Not at this point, he likes uniform, but we will may discuss with the building inspector – LM – Well, my vote will be for a vinyl siding MM – What is the percentage 20% is a 70% of the renovation? Its sounds like is going to be a complete rehab - AQ – Are you asking the question because of the sprinkler system? MM – Yeah – AQ – He just went to through the State in Boston where he wanted a building to be sprinkle and they change they did an amendment on the FHA. So, they said that he didn’t have to sprinkle because we change the law on me. So, on this is not a lot of change on this units is new bathroom, new kitchens there is not a lot gutters is more cosmetic, a lot of the stuff that we have to do is plumbing and electrical – MM – How about the rear – AQ – Yes, bathroom and brand new kitchen – MM – So, what do see the investment cost to rehabilitate it? AQ – Probably around 150k, because if you the cost and you must do it right and them you are going to have the building inspectors to come by. Also, a lot of this properties had been built in 36-+the 1900, so you know they are not complied, but you must do things right – MM – Have you done these projects before? AQ – Petitioner hasn’t she is new on this. Contractor has done hundreds of this, and when he got a client like Ruth he explained and make sure that they comprehended of buy a property they have to make sure that they hire the right person to make everything right - MM – He also look as a tax base in the City, unfortunately the way structure is a single family home has higher tax value than this multi-family. And we are looking on the impact on the City, a 3-family could potential put 3 – 7 kids in the school system at seven thousand dollar per child that’s fifty thousand dollars a year. And this property is only going net the City four thousand dollars in taxes, we are completely outside down on this property – AQ – Absolutely – MM – We looked this property and we all looked at it and it’s been an eyesore for a long time, but he thinks that part of the problem is that this was a single family home with a barn and over the years it got shut, shut. And now he looked at it and as he had mentioned before we have to reduce the density in the City and not keep promoting the density. So, his I looked this is like you have a single-family home and you have a barn, the barn will make a good rent of unit and the house will make a good rented unit LM – She was going to say 2 single-family – AQ – At this point petitioner is really seeking is 3-family, we did a lot research and we understand you all point of view. But 3-family is going help her and not just that she is going to make the property look neat, but there is opportunity for all other cases Hearing Closed Deliberate MM – He is struggling and that’s why we have to deliberate. What are our assurances if we granted for 3 and just go up for sale, we don’t know what type of investment is going to be done. He wants to see this building get back where its need to be, and we have a lot of people buying properties without doing their due diligence and is not good for the City and therefor he is struggling JB- Agree what Michel said, it seems that this is a game. He said that they are going to do 150k worth of renovation on this property, but we haven’t seeing any of his jobs, also we don’t know how much she pay if it, if was twice of that MM – He guess the question is that how are getting the assurance of the quality of the renovation gets done if we are going allowed it LM – We don’t, it can be like Harold did, she gets a 3-family situation and they get it on the Market as a three MM – He is not against to put this back up for some more questions LM – Petitioner paid $155k on July 18, 2017 14 AZ – He just wanted to say that we recently did an approval where we expressed said that the property not be sold or transferred until all conditions had been met. So, that the permit would be got hold otherwise would be like the permit it never granted. So, his thought on this is, 2 one-family will be beautiful and ideal, but practically speaking and that particular location he is not sure if anyone is going to be able to get the rent to justify that remediation or just you just to have it sitting there until it goes into a tax title or we are going to have to let it use for something that is not entirely what we see is optimal, but it is better then what it is proposed right now. And his though on the assurances is, if we granted and specifically said that it can’t be transferred until our conditions are met. Only two things can happen: Either our conditions are met. Or it sold and transferred on violation of the permit in which case the permit is void. LM – She is going to be completely honest on this, she is not on favor of the 3-family MM – He doesn’t think any Board Member are, and we need to understand what is truly is going to be done on this property. LM – Is anyone else is not on favor of this petition, because if that’s the case we are just spinning our wheels here for no reason – MM – You right. How are we get an assurance of renovation, some level is going to be done, he doesn’t know if the board can mark that as a condition. His other idea is to have this case to continuance, and they can present a list of what is going to be done on the property. If you going to be replaced the roof, windows, put that on the list and comeback to us and we put it on the condition, and it will get down AQ – That’s sound reasonable LM – So, would you like to continue to July or September? AQ – July AZ – Motion on ZBA-2019-13 under §181.3561 to Approved the Continuance to July 9, 2019 at which time petitioner to submit a revise site plan and a propose renovation check list JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Continuance to July 9, 2019 4. MISCELLANEOUS 5. ADJOURNMENT 15