Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 SENIOR CENTER, 14 WALLACE AVE 1. Call to Order LM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL 2. Communications LM ATTENDANCE: LM, MM, JB, JM & JS 3. Hearings ABSENT: AZ 4. ALSO ATTENDANCE: Mark Barbadoro, Building Commissioner & Atty. Vincent Pusateri, City Solicitor CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2019-16 William Thomas 0 HIGH ROCK RD 7:00PM Continuance: 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 Present for this petition were William Thomas and Atty. Christine Simons MM - At this time we are only 4-Members Board, unfortunately one member was unable to attend and another member recuse herself. So, would you like to proceed with the 4-member Board tonight or have a continuance? – Atty. Simons – How often do you have 4-members Board? – MM – Most times Atty. Simons – Perhaps due the circumstances it maybe we would like to wait, because we have some additional information to wrap-up the history on the property to present to the Board, so it make more sense to continue to next month Those seeking Information: None Those in Support: None Those in Opposition: None JB – Motion on ZBA-2019-16 under §181.9223 to Grant the Continuance to October 8, 2019 JS – Motion Seconded Vote 4–0 to Grant the Continuance to October 8, 2019 ZBA-2018-21 FBC19-62, LLC 126 PACIFIC ST/183 CEDAR ST/191 CEDAR ST 7:15PM 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 Presentation was given by Carl Bletzer and Atty. Mark Bodanza stating that from January to present there has been a lot improvement on these properties. We had fence the back yard between Pacific and Cedar Street, so that there is no connection between the two properties, got all the parking lot from the Pacific Street property. There is only a pedestrian gate for a walk-through and on the Cedar Street property Mr. Bletzer has more than enough parking to accommodate all three properties and it’s been done. Back on January we presented a plant and discussed about paving, stone, pipes and the parking area to be fencing, drainage install and all those had been taken care and complete. Atty. Pusateri and he visited those properties and addressed couple issues that it can dispensed very quickly, such some brazing on both sides of the fence. Mr. Bletzer re-cemented a number of post that are relating to the fence, but those re-placing are temporally and will come out tomorrow. The side walk on the Cedar Street area is not on the best of repair, so what the paver contracting did pave on Street sidewalk and on the driveway sidewalk just leaving the sidewalk intact and it looks great. He would like to remind the Board what we are looking to do is to dismiss 3-pieces of litigation, 2-appeals by Mr. Bletzer in the superior court and a claim by the City in the District Court all related to this case. So, we are not looking for a relief all we are looking is to do is to settle this case and be done. Atty. Pusateri, this matter came before the Board on an appeal of decision from the Building Commissioner for the share driveway. So, the City has a great interest in this particular area which is fixing a major parking problem, the construction of this parking lot does drop off the amount of parking problem, this give us the opportunity to get about 16 – 18 cars that otherwise would be on the street, which it’s a positive solution to the City. Many accomplish had been made, but there are few issues such in the back is a white vinyl fence that is belong to the neighbor on the east side which is unclear if it’s on Mr. Bletzer property, but the 6” to 8” height stone is not touching or causing any pressure on the fence at all. Also there are some trees, stones and some vegetation that he was under the impression that we were going to have a nice clean parking area. Another issue is some corners landscaping areas which he doesn’t think it has been complete, it was supposed to landscape so it can be reserve for snow storage Mr. Barbadoro, Building Commissioner had looked the proposed plan and on his opinion if a person allow to travel from one parcel to another with your car it will considered a common driveway situation; if you did not have to drive into another lot and that would be come off premise parking which is allow by right. So, in this particular configuration he doesn’t personal feels that if the lot does not have directly access which is 126 Pacific has no parking on it. Another matter on this is that if park creating for parking lot for multi-family or commercial uses requires site plan review from Planning Board, and the applicant is not going because he choose not too Those seeking Information: None Those in Support: None Those in Opposition: Mary Lee Rohrbach, she was under the impression that the City wasn’t going to allow any more share driveway. After all this is done are we as abutters would be able to appeal it? LM – Yes – Mrs. Latini where could we do that – LM – Best you can do is go to City Clerk office and find that out Atty. Pusateri, every share driveway is a separate case and they will have to evaluate the criteria on each one. On this particular case the applicant changes his plan which he is going to parking on Cedar Street and Pacific Street is no longer going being done – Mrs. Rohrbach, so it that’s mean those none of those cars from Pacific Street are going to park there? Atty. Pusateri, City of Fitchburg has Ordinance and states that allows to use parking on other buildings by traveling 800FT to another associate lot, this by-law help to re-habilitate some buildings that do not have parking and because they been abandoned we were not able to allow them to occupied Nicholas Shoemaker of 124 Pacific Street a fence section facing Mr. Bletzer not his and would like that turn around Michael and Jennifer Latini of 199 Cedar Street he has a concern about the drainage that it been install on his side of his property, where that drainage go. It doesn’t seems it goes anywhere, we had a lot of problem last winter, because that pipe is open and doesn’t have a cap and it come directly to his property Atty. Bodanza states that there is ton of stone that it been adding which would it dry the water off, and that is was the idea of adding stone on that area. And last winter those stone did not exists LM – Atty. Bodanza if there a continuance of problems after this winter will he continue to make sure to fix them? – Atty. Bodanza – The properties had been upgrading and everything we asked to do we did the petitioner has spent a lot of money to do it – LM – But, that is not correcting the problem, could you redirect it like to a different direction to you own property? – Atty. Bodanza the best thing he can do is to cap it JB – Doesn’t believe to vote on this to finish uncompleting action, until the action is completed MM – On his opinion the City needs to do something about parking criteria on a residential neighborhood, because if he is one of the abutters, he wouldn’t want to live on the next-door parking lot. He thinks thing would get a lot smooth if a quality work were done, but he visited the property and the fence was put in he probably could push the fence over with my hand. So, he would like to the fence put in correctly some proper landscape done with a little more effort and expense, because this is been a tremendous impact to the abutters, and he thinks that this could be much better LM – She believe that petitioner had made tremendous effort, but she also believes that a little more effort it needs made. We heard some issues tonight are we need more plantings; we need the fence fix because is shaking and we need something that is going last more than one winter. So, the Board may one to have you for a one more review. MM - Motion on ZBA-2018-21 under§181.752 Continue the Review with the following conditions: 1. Install fence correctly and not to exceed more than 6’Feet 2. Drainage pipe to be cap 3. Planting and landscape to be improve 2  4. Review on October 8, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 4–1 to Continue the Review with condition The Board further voted 4 – 1 to UPHOLD the decision of the Building Commissioner for the need of a Special Permit from The Planning Board Motion on ZBA-2018-21 to Overrule the Building Commissioner’s Decision for the need of a Special Permit from The Planning Board JB – Motion Seconded Vote 4–1 to UPHOLD Building Commissioner’s Decision ZBA-2014-18 Grecco Alonso 134 CRAWFORD ST 7:25PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.23 to operate a construction yard located in the Industrial District at 114R/1/0 LM- We notice some outside storage today? Mr. Grecco Alonso, what do you mean outside storage? LM – One of the condition is: No unregistered or inoperable vehicles on the property. Do you have those currently? – GA – There is one or two that we bought and we are trying to fix it to be use – LM – What is the turnover time? – GA – It’s depend on the mechanic on how it may take him to fix the problem – LM – Well, it’s a week? – GA – Its more than a week – LM – Okay how many at one time? – AG – Two weeks LM – Are you using the space on the left hand side of the property? – GA – We storage bricks and blocks Those seeking Information: None Those in Support: None Those in Opposition: None JB & JS – Did have no questions MM- Initially you did some landscape across the front, minus where the auto repot place was. He would like to recommend is that maybe to continue landscaping along the front of the fence on the left side of the building MM – Motion on ZBA-2014-18 under §181.23 to Approved the Review with the following conditions: 1. No unregistered or inoperable vehicles on property 2. Additional plantings on the left side of the property and straighten out the unrepair part of the fence JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approved the Review with Conditions ZBA-2018-19 RSC Global Holdings/Rayco Motors 447 WATER ST 7:35PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313C12 for an Auto Repair Garage located in the Central Business District at 95/59/0 Presentation was given by Harold Mateo stating that after a long road he finally obtained all State license approval from Motor vehicle DMV more specific, and now he is going to start putting those cars out for the public. It took a while place is completely renovated all permit been sign off and everything is order. Those seeking Information: None Those in Support: None Those in Opposition: None JM – Visited the property and its look neat and clean, the condition of no more than 5-cars still on place or would you want to modify it? – HM – No, as a now it will remain as it is, but in the event that he would want to increase those numbers, he knows what he would have to do MM – The cement on the wall – HM – Yes, it doesn’t look great and planning to fix it LM – As a chair Person doesn’t believe that another review is needed, so condition #7 to be remove and replaced to read as: Cement wall which border the left rear and right of the property will be repair MM – Motion on ZBA-2018-19 under §181.313C12 to Approve the Review with the following conditions: 1. Modification as per plan Submitted 2. No plastic or vinyl banners, professional signage only 3. No exterior storage of junk and no-inoperable/dismantled vehicles outside the property 3  4. No parking on the sidewalk or street 5. Hours of operations: Monday – Friday 8:30AM to 7:30PM Saturday 9:00AM to 3:00PM Sunday closed 6. Sunset Clause – Special Permit shall terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of the business from RSC Global Holdings/Rayco Motors/Harold Mateo 7. Cement wall which border the left rear and right of the property will be repair JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Review with Conditions ZBA-2019-02 Santiago Fernandez 84 PRATT ST 7:45PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential C District at 77/68/0 First Call…. Second Call…. Third and last call…… *Currently no one was present on the audience for this petition At this time the Board was agreed to give the petitioner some additional time so he can be present and express his progress and/or intention on the petition MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-2 under to Continue the Review to October 8, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Continue with the Review to October 8, 2019 ZBA-2016-31 Active Life Health Care Management/Valdimir Giterman 783 WATER ST 7:55PM 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 Presentation given by Valdimir Giterman stating that property was sold, and he has communicated with the current owner about the petition. So, at this point he doesn’t feels that he can do much to improvement the exterior on the property, because he doesn’t know how much he could be responsible for. LM – There was a correspondence from Community Development see Exhibit “A” Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None MM – Why don’t we do another 6-months review, and that will give us time to invite the new owner directly – VG – Okay, it’s there a way that you can contact the owner directly JB – The previous owner agreed with the Board to improve the sidewalk and the parking lot, planting, taking care plans around the site Mr. Barbadoro Building Commissioner stated the he could write a letter to the new owner to contact him LM – Lets do 8-months review around Spring so the weather would allow the owner to work on said property MM – Motion on ZBA-2016-31under to Continue the Review with the following conditions: 1. Plan for garden and vegetation submitted on February 19, 2019 had been accepted 2. Per plan previously submitted 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 May 12, 2020 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 Continue the Review with condition 4 ZBA-2018-23 Roberto Fernandez 27 GAGE ST 8:05PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 2-family dwelling with stacked parking spaces located in the Residential B District at 31/111/0 Presentation was given by Roberto Fernandez stating that everything that he was asked to do is been completed. And the third unit had been decommissioned Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None At this time the Board Members didn’t have any question to the petitioner, petitioner has been very cooperative on meeting all conditions to reinstate the property as a two-family dwelling MM- Motion on ZBA-2018-23 under §181.3561 to Approved the Review with the following conditions: 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. Not to act as a nuisance complaint JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approved the Review with Conditions ZBA-2019-01 Kenneth Godfrey 220-222 ALBEE ST 8:15PM 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 At this time no one was present in the audience on this petition At this time the Board was agreed that the petitioner has not shown any interest on this petition, since that this was his third time that petitioner had not been present MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-01 under §181.3561 to Approved the Special Permit JB – Motion Seconded Vote 0-5 to Approved the Special Permit Special Permit DENY ZBA-2018-38 Positive Properties, LLC 35 JEANNETTE ST 8:25PM Revie of a 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 At this time petitioner had asked via email to continue his petition to October 8, 2019 see exhibit “A” Board Members all agreed to give some additional time to petitioner, so can complete his project Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None MM – Motion on ZBA-2018-38 to Continuance with the Review to October 8, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Continue the Review to October 8, 2019 ZBA-2014-11 Sean Morrison 76 SUMMER ST 8:35PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313C10B to allow Open-Air Restaurant Sales located in the Residential C District at 70/30/0 5 At this time petitioner had verbally talked to Michael McLaughlin and requested to continue with the review to October 8, 2019. There was a time conflict with another meeting tonight and he was unable to be present LM – The Board had received a comment from Board Of Health stating that the Food Permit has expired as of April 30, 2016 please see Exhibit “A” Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None Board Members agreed that business is not operating and there shouldn’t be any problem postponing the review till next month MM – Motion on ZBA-2014-11 under §181.313C10B to Continue with the Review to October 8, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Continue the Review to October 8, 2019 ZBA-2019-11 Jackson Avenue Realty Trust 95 CLINTON ST 8:45PM 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 At this time Petitioner wrote a text to Lauren McNamara Chairperson expressing that he decided to withdrawal his petition and he wants to keep the property as it is Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-11 under §181.355 to Approve the Leave of Withdrawal without Prejudice JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Withdrawal without Prejudice ZBA-2019-20 Richfield Co. LLC 215 BEMIS RD 8:55PM Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a single-family dwelling located in an Industrial District Map 123 Block 20 Lot 0 Presentation was given by Gary Litchfield stating that he purchases the property not long ago which was built on 1941. He has been doing this type of transactions for over 40 years and he never had a situation where a house has been abandoned, this is a single-family dwelling and he wants to keep as it is. The house was left in some disrepair and he had done cleaning, but he was unable to do anything else on the house, since this is located in an Industrial Zoning District. There is plenty parking for a single-family with a nice yard, all he is trying to do is fix it and put it back into the market. Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None JB – No question MM – Could you give us a general quick description of what are you doing to the exterior? – GL – Exterior he doesn’t think it need work, but when he goes to the project he will look and if it needs a new roof he will install a new roof, so when is ready to sell it will be ready for whoever buys it to move in MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-20 under §181.3561 to Approved the Special Permit as requested JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approved the Special Permit as requested ZBA-2019-21 Anderson E. Dosantos 5 CROWN ST 9:10PM Special Permit under §181.313B7 to preserve chickens and rooster on a single-family dwelling located in a Residential C District Map 81 Block 18 Lot 0 6 Presentation was given by Anderson Dosantos and Devol Elayas friend of the petitioner of 95 Huron Way, Leominster, stating that the petitioner received a letter from the City stating that he has to remove his chickens. He immediately went to the City Hall to check what would he had to do to keep them, so the only solution was to apply for a Special Permit with this Board LM – Do you have chickens and a rooster? AD – Yes – LM – How many chickens – AD – 12-chickens and 2- rooster Those on Opposition: None Those seeking information: Berni Richards of 86 Nashua Street states that this is very unattractive to the neighborhood Stacy Agostini of 86 Nashua Street its starts at three o’clock in the morning 24/7 it’s very distractive unfortunately and the smell is getting out of control Elizabeth Brunell of Charles Street wrote a note to the Board see Exhibit “A” MM – It hard to get there, but by-law states that you must had to have 5-acress of land to have chickens, and on this property is less than one acre. The property it’s beautiful, but we must look the abutters that you have get up a five in the morning, which is a tuff decision for the Board, but you are too far away from the 5-acres JB – Obviously it against the City Ordinance rules you need 5-acres, therefor his vote will be “No” because right on the street is a store where he can buy chickens and eggs. So, is not a needed for this and its close to the neighborhood LM – She agreed with what the Board had said because petitioner is 4.75 acres away from what City Ordinance said and that’s a lot MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-21 under §181.313B7 to Approve the Special Permit as requested JB – Motion Seconded Vote 0–5 to Approved the Special Permit as requested Special Permit DENY ZBA-2019-22 Fernando Antelo 28 LAWRENCE ST 9:25PM Special Permit under §181.355 to convert a single-family dwelling into a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential B District Map 57 Block 58 Lot 0 Presentation was given by Fernando Antelo and Fernando Antelo (Son) stating that he obtained the property couple years ago, he been maintained and give a good care to it. There is big barn that a lot of the space is not being use, there is plenty land to create parking to fit 6-cars. LM – What is the idea are planning to be separated meters for utilities? – FA – Yes, also on the neighborhood there are a lot of 3-family and two-family dwellings Those seeking information: None Those on Favor: Mr. Delucio friend of petitioner for over 20-years so he is on his support Those on Opposition: Helen Donlan of 29 Brigham Park she wants to point what happens when people add apartments. She owns a single-family next to my left and right use to be two-family, they increased to three-family on both sides. As a result, we now have absolutely no parking, and what people said that she has a back land on her property, but that is not the issue. Her concern is that she is 84-years old and she may need an ambulance, and already happened to her husband that ambulance couldn’t come through because of all the cars JS – How much is the investment that are you planning to do on the renovation – FA – Have no idea have not done any math – JS – And you said that you don’t use the barn for anything – FA – Just for garage and some little storage, and this is bigger than the main house – JB – Do you have floor plan layout – FA – No, he has not done that part yet LM – On her opinion for a petition like this she would need to see plans. However, increasing the population on a dense neighborhood like this area and increasing the cars potentially being on the road she is not favorably. She would be sad making petitioner expend additional money obtaining plans when it may not even get approved MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-22 under §181.355 to Approve the Special Permit as requested 7 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 0–5 to Approve the Special Permit as requested Special Permit DENY ZBA-2019-23 Zachary Poladian 285 RIVER ST 9:40PM Use Variance under §181.962 Special Permit under §181.352 to operate a motor vehicle sales located in an Industrial District Map 39 Block 51 Lot 0 Presentation was given by Zachary Poladian stating that he was under the impression that there was Special Permit granted to the location which he wasn’t aware that it was no longer valid. He knows that there was a permit for no more than the 4-cars, but there is plenty parking spaces on the back of the building. Therefore, he would like to ask to the Board for more than 4-cars, there was work done previously, all the wires are gone, telephone pole and had contacted Until, but nobody wants to take responsible. He is trying to conduct the business as a one-men show MM – Are any wires on – ZP – No LM – Have you to take the opportunity to look the previous conditions on the Special Permit – ZP – He did – LM – And how do feel about it other than 4-vehicles – AP – Other than 4-vehicles he thinks that almost every criteria could be met in the past, he believes that he can use a fresh coat with a professional wire to complete meet those – LM – So, you willing to do that – ZP – They already been done except from the wire Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None MM – Do you want to add some more cars on the back? – ZP – He would like to add some more cars at the front and on the back, on his opinion he can fit about 15-vehicles – MM – He would be okay to add a reasonable amount of cars – ZP – He would like to utilized the back as well – MM - You would have to show us delineates the parking for the vehicles LM – So, how many cars would the Board would like to see on this lot without a plan? – MM – He thinks that it will okay with 8-vehicles to start and let’s do a review down on the road, so petitioner can obtain a plot plan LM – How about the hours of operation? – ZP – 9:00AM to 5:00PM Monday – Friday – LM – No Saturday and no Sunday – ZP – Sundays 12:PM to 5:00PM – LM – So, should we said Monday through Saturday – ZP – Yeah we can say that, but it may change – LM – Lighting, exterior lighting – ZP – There is one exterior light currently and we will run some more LM – Snow storage, that’s you want to make sure to show that on your plot plan MM – On favor he believes that he meets the Special Permit Criteria JB – On favor MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-23 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. No motor vehicle repairs, and No exterior storage of motor vehicle parts or supplies 2. Maximum of 8 vehicles displayed for sale 3. No junk or un-operated cars storage outside 4. Hours of Operations: Monday to Saturday 9:00AM to 5:00PM and Sundays 12:00PM to 5:00PM 5. Review in two months - November 12, 2019 6. Plot plan to be submitted in two months showing snow removal storage and lined parking cars 7. 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 Zachary Poladian JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approved the Special Permit with conditions 8 ZBA-2019-24 Yessenia Quijada 70-72 SHERIDAN ST 9:55PM Special Permit under §181.3562 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as 4-family dwelling located in a Residential C District Map 141 Block 69 Lot 0 Presentation was given by Yessenia Quijada stating that she bought the property and would like to bring it up to date, so she can be able to rent it. Building Inspector visited the property and suggested to obtain the Special Permit, so she can reinstate it and so she can start to do some repairs. Such, electricity, painting, floor and pluming. Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None JB – It looks like the Board approved this before, and if petitioner willing to do whatever conditions we decide tonight and/or from the Building Department, he has no problems on it MM – At this time the Board would like to see a writing letter from the Building Inspector stating what would be the scope of work that on his opinion the property would need. So, at this point we will like to have a continuance on this petition so the Board could collect some additional information to make our decision accordantly MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-24 §181.3562 to Continuance to October 8, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Continuance to October 8, 2019 ZBA-2019-25 Iglesia Fuego Bajando del Cielo 21 UNION ST 10:10PM Maria Cotto de Jesus, President Special Permit under §181.3566 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building for use as a Church and an apartment in the Residential C District Map 44 Block 141 Lot 0 Presentation was given by Maria Cotto and Yarisbeth Guzman (Church CPA) stating that property was donated to us no long ago, we requested a permit from the City to open up the church we couldn’t because the property was abandoned for over 2-years. Therefore, we are here tonight asking for a Special Permit to continue the use and continue our wordship at the church, as a church we been operating since 2012. We know that one of the biggest concern from the building department is the parking, we have the permission from the church across the street from us and also we use the municipal parking right on Main Street and they got pick-up by a bus that the church owns. So, we would like to continue doing what we are doing for the community, and the pastor occupied the unit on the 2nd floor. Our wordship days are Monday, Thursday and Sundays, and the other church are only Saturdays and some Tuesdays, so that help us to utilized their parking Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None Those on Favor: Daniel Santana of 51 Plymouth Street in Gardner stating that he been a church member since 2013 and this building has been use as it is for the past 40-years Felix Colon of 91 Stoney brook Road and all he has to said is more churches and less liquor stores MM – So, the apartment is only to be use by the Pastor? – YG – Yes – would you okay if we put that as a condition – YG – Absolutely – MM – Does the unit has the proper egresses? – YG – Yes, it does JB – He is not in hardly concern on this because they have the parking garage and the bus MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-25 §181.3566 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. The second floor apartment unit to be occupied by the pastor only JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Special Permit with condition 9 ZBA-2019-26 Bak Realty, LLC 29 NUTTING ST 10:25PM “The applicant is petitioning the Fitchburg Zoning Board of appeals under Fitchburg Zoning Code Section §181.9223, M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 8, and M.G.L. c 40A, Section 3 to overturn the Building Commissioners decision that the use of the building is not allowed under §181.313 Table of Principle Use Regulations of the Fitchburg Zoning Code as amended and is therefore prohibited.” In the Residential B District Map 10 Block 54 Lot 0 Presentation was given by Kirill Barshevsky (Property Owner), Atty. Andrew Tine and Donald Flagg (President of Crossing Over Inc.) stating that this petition really a request for this Board to rule that 40A Section 3 should be valid for the town. This is a Massachusetts General Law that’s need to be comply by the every single town of the Massachusetts, so therefore what is the City has done through his Building Commissioner is issue a violation to the property is actually a contravention of 40A Section 3. Which states on this disable individuals is a congregate a leaving arrangement needs to be treating the same as a single family for purpose of zoning and code enforcement. So, if a single family could use this property in a particular manner so can disable individuals and that is the benefit is given under this law for disable individuals, is to integrate them to communities and neighborhoods street because they typically won be able to have housing. So, what this law does give people who is disable a leg on it gives them the ability even they are related to co- habited, leaving arrange, support each-other and get access to housing. Donald’s non-profit organization is using it for up to 5-individuals on each floor, so is always been use as the same manners as a single-family dwelling, which the only difference is that they are not related. So, what Mass General Law said it the town must treat it as the same, as it they were related. JB – So, are you handling this three-family as a single family? – Atty. Tine – It a 3-single family it’s a three-apartments dwelling so it’s a single-family together. Donald Flagg states that this is a non-profit organization which he strongly believes that is really need it, this give to these people an opportunity to reintegrate back into the community. It’s not a place where people come and leave every week, some of them stays there for 6-months to 12-months or even longer. We have are a member of the Massachusetts Alliance for Sober Housing which set standard and regulations for Sober homes, based on this regulations tell us how many people you can put on a dwelling because they come and measure to make sure that they are not over occupied. We have a safe guidance for everyone, we don’t allow them to hang out in front of the house, we don’t allow smoke in front of the house they have a designated smoke area. On the process we also introduce them to administrator we talk about Jesus and they all go church on Sundays, because is an administer. We have two locations and there ever being a complaint and that’s the way it should be, it should be no one know that we are there. And he just want to make it clear about the number of people they are five on unit 2 and 3, and there are 3 occupant on unit one because we have our office there too Mr. Barsheysky property owner states that when he purchased the home he did it with the intent of helping people, he has other properties and he had the experience that sometimes there sometimes are up to 5, 6 or 7-people per unit. As a property owner he is willing to work with the City to fix whatever he has to fix to make everything compliance At this time there are a lot of correspondence related to this case if anyone would like to see it please refer to attached exhibits Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: Robert Powers and Sharon Cerulli of 26 Nutting Street across of street form this location, and we are here to get clarification for this being a boarding house because of the amount of people leaving in it. One thing we want the Board knows is that building is a 2-bedroom units and our major concern is the parking as a home owners in the area we were not notify that this was going in. We believe that they may being there for 2-years now, and since that time it have been some situations to park up on the neighborhood. We use to have a paper street, the paper street is now being utilized as a parking lot. Currently we issues related to the parking, trash doesn’t always pick-up sometimes they pick-up at one side but not at the other because the trash truck is unable to turn around. So on their opinion this is a disaster Those on Favor: Felix Colon of 91 Stoneybrook Road Fitchburg, he known Donald for 4-years he also had work for him and he believes on the philosophy that Donald believes to help others 10 John Jefferson of 437 Boston street stating that he never been on a sober home, but he is on support Daniel originally from Athol and been 29 Nutting St resident since May and if it wasn’t from Donald I wouldn’t have a house to sleep at night Theodore Bronson of 84 Mt Vernon Street and he knows Donald for years and one day Donald expressed him that he wanted to help others, at that time he was the owner of 44 Mt Vernon Street and at the second floor were 5-bedrooms and he suggested him to use that space to help others. And that’s why he knows that Donald is not on this because of the money, he really wants to help others to be back on their normal life 76 Gloria Avenue in support Donald Justine Griffin Marlborough Street states that she knows Donald for about 2-years who helped her a lot Ashly 58 Intervale Road also on support of the petition because Donald had helped her in the past Frank resident of 29 Nutting Street in support because this has been a good support to him LM – Unfortunately we are going to continuance this case to November 12, 2019 because we are running out of time MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-26 to Continue with this petition to November 12, 2019 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Continue with the Petition to November 12, 2019 ZBA-2019-27 Jacob Delorme 25 NIMITZ AVE 10:40PM Special Permit under §181.421 to replace a 8x10 SF shed by a 10x10 SF shed leaving approximately 6” from the property line in the Residential A-2 District Map 131 Block 44 Lot 0 Presentation was given by Jacob Delorme stating that he was replacing a retaining wall there was a shed, the shed was lithely pushing the retaining wall out because it never was set-up right. At this point we were replacing the wall which it going to be finish sometime this week, so the shed was going to be putting right back where it was. LM – So, it will be almost in line at the front of the house? – JD – No, it going to be back little be more than ten feet – LM – Its any other place on the property that it will lend itself? – JD – The only other spot will be where the pool is, because the backyard slops a little be up and on the left side it will be the same situation because he only has about 15feet Those on Favor: None Those seeking information: None Those on Opposition: None JB – He has no issues with the petition, he visited the property and on his opinion the shed will be close to the retaining wall, but it should be enough breathing space so the dripping off the roof will be taking care MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-27 under §181.421 to Approve the Special Permit as it requested JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Special Permit as requested 5. MISCELLANEOUS Revise to Approve Zoning Board of Appeals Application and Checklist – Move to October 8, 2019 Revise to Approve 2020 Meeting Dates and Filing Deadlines - Move to October 8, 2019 6. ADJOURNMENT 11