Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 Note: THIS WILL BE A VIRTUAL MEETING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO OBSERVE THE MEETING CAN GO TO: https://register.gotowebinar.com/rt/3216552406367581196 +(631)992-3221 PERSONS THAT WISH TO PARTICIPATE PLEASE EMAIL mmata@fitchburgma.gov MEETING MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 MEETING TIME: 6:00 PM 1. Call to Order LM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL 2. Communications LM ATTENDANCE: Lauren McNamara (Chair), Michael McLaughlin (Co-Chair), Anthony Zarrella (Clerk), Jeanne Survell, Brian Gallagher & Greg Babineau 3. Hearings 4. Absent: Joseph Byrne 5. Also, in attendance: Mark Barbadoro (Building Commissioner CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2016-31 Active Life Health Care Management/Valdimir Giterman 783 WATER ST 6:00PM 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 The virtual presentation was given by Vladimir Giterman stating that I wanted to quickly apologize for the last time, I didn't realize I had to pre-register to attend to the virtual meeting. So, I tried to attend the last meeting and I just couldn't join because it was too late. At the last time, we spoke the building changed ownership and we decided to give it another kind of go around to see what the new owner is going to do, and how he's going to try to beautify the property. I think, but I think while we were closed. So, every time we talk, he seems like he is doing a great job; he's motivated he already put some planters along the road. I believe he planted something in the planters that went in a while ago he's very motivated and definitely, he wants to improve this building and he takes care of it. Throughout the winter with the plowing a lot better than the previous owner, he definitely in my opinion. I don't know I'm not a psychic but in my opinion, he is motivated to make this better even in the hard times like we are in right now, I mean we were close he gave us a good kind of a little bit of a with the rent charges and everything he gave us a little bit of flexibility which is good we've been closed for a while. I talked to him his restaurant was a little bit slower than usual but even with all that he still putting effort into beautifying the building which is awesome, so I think we're happy and I hope you guys are as well with what's going on over there LM – I did see the planters I didn’t see any Flowers in there, obviously, you feel better about it so that's a good thing. Yes, we know times are tough for anybody right now, my understanding was that the owner was actually to come with you, or was that not doable? VG – Yes, I believe we talked about it last time, I can't make him come in, so I don't know if you guys extended the invitation to him. I did not invite him this time around it wasn't clear to me, because I don't know if you had limited capacity in regard to virtual meetings. LM – Okay, let me go through the conditions: #1 plan for garden vegetation, and that was submitted in February. #2 per plan submitted #3 - not to be operated as a nuisance - #4 Hours of operations 7 am – 4 pm Monday to Friday 7 am – 2 pm Saturday and Sunday VB – Yes, Saturday, and we were trying to be get extended to Sunday, but obviously with COVID all bow back really fast, but once we are open and if there is interest in Sundays with definitely will be opening Sundays LM – So, we keep it there so you can have the option VG – Okay LM - In terms of the beautification, why are we doing other things that we kind of talked about that was committed too? I'm not seeing on, tell me was going on parking to be seal coating VG - I believe he did something to the parking lot, but last time when I was there in person in front of the board, we were agreed that I can't make anybody do anything because it's his parking lot, I think he already did something on the parking lot, as far as repairing and closing up some of the potholes LM - Okay LM – Is there anyone seeking information in this case? None LM – Is anyone in opposition? None LM – Is anyone in support? None JS – Property looks much better than 2016, I think the petitioner is ready to move on BG - I did visit the site I was greeted by some of the employees who invited me in, and the inside was extremely clean. They were friendly and I think it benefits the community, great to have something like that, so I say we move forward on. AZ – I just wanted to say that how many times we've had them come in, and how cooperative have been, how well their business is running. The fact as petitioner said that there's anything, he can do to force the beautification it can be done. He's made all efforts; I would incline to just assume that condition is satisfied in so far. He has any control over it, and I don't even think we need another review on this everything else is out of his hands LM - I would agree that the petition is been extremely patient, the building inside looks fantastic. Perhaps we can dement condition #1 acceptable, and we don’t necessarily need to have them come back for another review AZ - motion on ZBA-2016-31 under §181.313B5 to Approve the Review striking condition #5 and deeming conditions #1 and 2 as satisfied to read as follow: 1. Plan for garden and vegetation submitted on February 19, 2019, had been accepted and it has been satisfied 2. Per plan previous submitted – Satisfied 3. Not to be operated as a nuisance 4. Hours of Operation: 7:00AM to 4:00PM Monday to Friday 7:00AM to 2:30PM Saturday and Sunday 5. Sunset Clause – Special Permit will expire/terminate upon the sale/transfer of lease of in the event that such lease is unable to be negotiated with Active Life Health Care Management BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 4–0 to Approve the Review with conditions ZBA-2018-14 Michael Lamkin 110-112 ASHBURNHAM ST 6:15PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.3561 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building and a Special Permit under §181.3555 extended the nonconformity from 2-units to a 4-units structure located in the Residential B District at 174/27/0 The virtual presentation was given by Michael Lamkin stating that the project is coming along pretty nicely, last time we were here we asked for an extension. Due to the circumstances my own I had, I fell off a ladder and broke my leg I spent an entire year in a hospital in a nursing home. Therefore, on our last review my wife was in, she asked for a one-year extension, but the Board only granted her six months. The fact is, I needed a year 2 because I was out for a year. Anyways we came back last April, and I resumed the project, which comes along really nice. The exterior work is done, all the sprinkler system both underground and inside been installed, all the electrical, plumbing and the second floor is 98% complete. I'm waiting for countertops, the 1st floor about ready to begin painting. If you want to know when it's going to be completed, I'm going to tell you approximately mid-November. So, next time you drive by I encourage you to stop, you would be quite surprised and pleased. I'm certainly proud of it, it all pave and substantial concrete wall in the back that looks like granite. I have outlets back there for Ivy receptacles. The Board asked me to put in a nice vinyl fence, I did that it’s complete I painted the shed it looks good. I think everybody in the building Department is happy, I know my neighbors are happy, the bank's happy I'm happy and you should be happy. We made substantial improvements in the neighborhood, and with all that being said there's no rush because honestly until our governor restricts this eviction moratorium, I have no intention of renting it. I'm not going to put somebody in there and get a month or two of rent paid and then have told me they're not going to pay. Not going do it, so until Massachusetts opens up the housing courts and I'm able to accept my constitutional rights and evict people, and in the meantime, it's allowing me to do a nice job. I'm putting granite countertops, wood floors, oak staircases, I'm probably making it even better than I would because of the extra time LM - How about the planning board conditions? have you met all of their conditions? ML - I believe so, I haven't reviewed them recently LM – Are going back to them? ML - I don't think so LM – I didn’t believe either ML - I've been working every single day from 8 in the morning till 4:00 in the afternoon and you're welcome to stop in anytime LM – We understand I just reviewing condition #3 which states that Planning Board conditions need to be completed before the occupancy ML – Okay, well everything they ask for will be done LM – How about the landscaping? ML - Landscaping is all done LM – And the porch? ML - Porch is done, all the exterior work is completed 100%, lights are on the property at night all the exterior is complete including the landscape, I'm putting the final coat of asphalt down September 29th LM – Great LM - Is anyone in the audience here is seeking information? None LM - Anyone in opposition? None LM – Anyone in favor of this petition? None AZ - I wish I hadn't seen this because Mr. Lamkin has done what looks like a really good job, and I don't want to throw any kind of roadblock in his way, but the way we work in our decision would you say all conditions from the planning board have to be met. Looking at the planning board decision and they say that he needs a variance from us, for density which we didn't grant in the initial special permit because it wasn't applied for. Their condition #2 says this special permit is subject to obtaining a variance for density greater than six dwelling units per acre from the ZBA. I haven't looked into whether that impact something that requires a variance, or it's just a condition imposed by the planning board. which by our initial decision, therefore, adopted as our conditions LM – Its two-units, isn’t it? AZ – It is four, but I don't know why they said that. They may be doing it fractionally; they may be saying six units per acre. I haven't seen them do this before, on a property that we've been looking at, I'm just saying that’s there, and I don't want to throw up any kind of roadblocks 3 ML - This came up at your meeting before, where we talk about the requirement for an acre that is required for six units not proportionally divisional. If you want to put up six-units you need one-acre, but I'm not doing 6 units I'm doing 4, so it's okay. If you look through the paperwork that this did not apply to this particular situation, it's not divisional otherwise you don't need 6th of an acre per unit AZ – This is the kind of things that we would discuss before it’s have been an awhile ML - If you review all your notes, I think you'll see that it came up where the building inspector gave his opinion on that and somebody else came in on it too LM – I would like to ask Mark the Building Commissioner if he could pontificate on this Commissioner - The way I have read it is that’s proportional when you start with multifamily housing it starts at 4. So, I was reading it that you need for a four or six-family you need an acre LM - Do you recall that this been brought up before and it was discussed it wasn't applicable? Commissioner - I don't know I, but I think it's probably a little late in the game to tell him that he can't have 4- units because he's been working on it all of this time LM – Exactly Commissioner - people have asked me what’s my opinion is on it, and I said there are two ways to read it, and that is it's increment every 6-units you need an additional acre, but I have been reading it as it's as if it's a proportion. So, it’s a ratio so one six of an acre would be required for four LM – Looking at the initial decisions from the back of July 10, 2018. Condition #1 All conditions from the Planning Board to be part of this decision #2 Project to be completed in 18 months – January 2020 #3 Project not to be operated as a nuisance #4 All Planning Board conditions to be completed prior to the occupancy and #5 Review in February 2020. The petitioner applies back on May 2019 and was approved by the Board on July on the same year, on a vacant 2-units dwelling to extend the non-conformity to a 4-units AZ – Looking the Provision now, I agree is ambiguous, I agree that this phase where the petitioner is already gone forwards in the assumption that the ambiguity would be resolved in his favor. It should be, so I think what we're looking at here is the way the planning board's condition is written their permit for him is still conditioned on him getting a variant and we can't change that ourselves. What we can do is say that we are not incorporating that as our condition and those do not believe a variance is required, and then he would have to go back and get the planning board's change of their decision. That's not something we can do, I'm not even clear if we can take an appeal from the planning board as a permitting authority. What we can do is say that we are not going to require that particular condition from the planning board AZ - I just wanted to ask quickly just because Mr. Lamkin said that all the exterior work is done, But I notice there are some electronics near the door that are kind of dangling is that just like a very temporary thing? ML – One is nob-box from the fire alarm for the fire department, I haven't called them up to lock it yet. And the other one is a video camera for the intercom system AZ - It wasn't a concern I was just curious what was going on BG - I don't have any questions I do have some comments, I review the property back in March and went back yesterday and took a look at it again and I see a vast improvement with the landscaping. It looks nice, the vinyl fence along the side of the property is straight as an arrow and it looks beautiful, so I see a huge improvement to it. JS – Drive by and it looks great 4 LM - I have just commented I think it looks fantastic, drive-by myself and done a great job of it AZ - I would also like to move that we enter a finding that there is no variance required ambiguity of the statute should be resolved in favor of the petitioner’s interpretation that it is a requirement of 1 acre or 6 units not a fraction thereof AZ - Motion on ZBA-2018-14 under §181.356 to Approve the Review amending condition #1 to read: All conditions from the Planning Board except the requirements of a density variance. Strike #5 to read as follow: 1. All conditions from the Planning Board to be part of this decision except the requirements of a dimensional variance 2. Not to be operated as a nuisance 3. All Planning Board conditions to be completed prior to the occupancy 4. The porch and landscaping to be done by the end of the year BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Approve the Review with conditions ZBA-2019-07 Dufresne Realty Trust 197 LUNENBURG ST 6:30PM Review of Variance under §181.414 for the construction of a Free Standing 2’ from the sideline of Lunenburg St. and the bottom of the sign will be street level located in the Commercial & Automotive District 46/30/0 The virtual presentation was given by Edward and Karen Dufresne stating that the sign it’s been up and running for over a year with no problems on so ever. It shut off at 10 at night and comes back on at 6:00 in the morning or after six on the timer, we haven't had any complaints about it. We have been getting a lot of good reviews from customers about it because they can finally see us LM – Okay, freestanding sign, an electronic display with static images, no photo images. ED – No LM – Okay, size and location and I'm just going through the conditions, public service announcements? Such for income tax season time anything like that? ED – I don’t know what you mean LM – So, condition number four was: Public service announcements to be included in the text, such as time, temp, and amber alerts ED – Yes, that’s been display LM – Good, #5 sign to be maintained in good condition and repair ED – Yes LM – Sign to meet standards of the Department of Transportation not less than 3 seconds display change ED – Yes, it all set LM – Hours of operation Monday – Sunday from 6:00AM - 10:00 PM ED – It’s shut off at 10:00 PM and turn it back on at 6:00 AM automatically LM - Then you have the Street address on the sign, right? the street address to be displayed prominently on the sign or the signpost ED - No we don't have any street address on there now LM – It’s okay, but you probably want to put that on there, because the Fire Department wants it down there ED – Yes, that's a good idea I'll do that LM – Anyone seeking information related to this case? None LM – Anyone in support of the petition? None 5 LM – Anyone in opposition? None MM - I just want to make sure that the sign does not have any animation on it. ED – Nope BG – Visited the site, met with the owner saw that the sign is still in excellent condition it's bright. The post that's holding it up is like the paint looks brand new on it, he took me in and open the box and show me the timer. He's adhering to the time that was agreed upon 6:00AM to 10:00 PM and I think it looks great. It still looks brand new and adding the address to it would be helpful but other than that I think it looks great AZ - I agree with what Mike said, about we do have few signs that do animation thing, that shouldn't be and it’s important to keep in mind, but otherwise no questions or concerns. LM - I'm happy to move on and strike the review, it is seeing everything else in place. If someone wants to add a condition in regard to the date or the number to be secured on there by a time frame we can, but other than that looks good. AZ - Motion on ZBA-2019-07 under §181.414 to Approve the Review amending condition #8 Street address to be added to the sign or signpost within 30 days from the date of the decision was made. Condition #9 to replacing to not be operated as a nuisance to read as: 1. Free Stand sign 2’ from the front line 2. Electronic display with static images, permitting specifically photo real images 3. Size and location of the sign as per plan submitted and dated March 1, 2019 4. Public service announcements to be included in the text, such as, time, temp, and amber alerts 5. Signs to be maintained in good condition and repair 6. Sign to meet D.O.T. standards – not less than 3 seconds of display change 7. Hours of Operation: Monday – Sunday 6:00AM – 10:00PM 8. Street address to be displayed prominently on sign or signpost within 30 days from the date of the decision was made 9. Not to be operated as a nuisance BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Approve the Review with conditions ZBA-2020-04 Martha Sanchez 157 HIGH ST 6:45PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.356 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential C District Map 10 Block 81 Lot 0 The virtual presentation was given by Nadel Antonio (Contractor) on behalf of the petitioner helping her out at 157 high Street. I understand the house caught on fire and due to that we have to come and obtain a Special Permit to reinstated, I pulled a building permit, and actually, I am the contractor and the electrician. Right now, the third floor that you were granted to live in if everything is safe. It’s almost done I should have the electrical inspector by the end of the week or by Monday and them for the building inspection of the third floor AZ – Just to answer the petitioner's question more directly again, the permit that's been granted so far was only for a single unit. So, there will need to be a new application, when we're ready to handle the second and third units. The reason we did it that way was that we were told, that missed Sanchez needed that one unit to live in. That she's been displaced by the fire, so we tried to hustle that along as fast as we could, but we weren't quite ready to decide on the other units yet. So, this is just a review of that single unit, so you said you're almost done on the 1st one unit? NA – Correct, the unit itself will be ready for final inspection by Friday, I should have the electrical ready for Kyle City wire inspector to do the final inspection. One of the requirements was to make sure that all smoke detector on both hallways and the basement was connected with her unit, so I am tackling that right now this week that way I can bring the fire Department to test it, to assure that the hallways and her unit go off at the same time 6 AZ – Okay, so that is electrical, and are other utilities all set? NA – Correct, everything's all set, the water is on, the hot water still off because I still working on the electrical right now AZ - Alright that makes sense GB - Don't have any questions they were already answered with the safety of that third floor, which I'm sure the other inspections would take care on the one occupant third floor and two unoccupied floors beneath MM - We kind of push this along to help out and I know some of us had some reservations about the reinstatement, as a three-family because there's no parking. The place seemed like it had been abandoned for quite a while, so I don't know how the board if we're just going to approve this review at this point and then have to reapply for the second and third units. Or, there was just the push for a single AZ - We already granted the permit and it was on an amended request for single occupancy, or rather a single unit. There would need to be an additional application, it would be within our power to waive the application fee for the re-application on the other two units. The initial application was already made and then amended for practical reasons, there would still be a separate application because its Case No longer deals with a request for three units LM – Are you saying that no longer requests for 3-units? AZ - This case ZBA-2020-04 no longer deals with a request for three units because it was amended and then granted already AZ - It's entirely doable just it would require new applications LM – I am fine waiving the fee MM - Does it need to be in emotion, or can it just become a condition? AZ - I think because it's dealing with a new application, not this case would have to do it; it would be essentially miscellaneous business that would be taking out of order it wouldn't pertain to this case pacifically MM - I don't understand the taking it out of order. AZ - Normally we have miscellaneous business at the end of our agenda, but by parliamentary maneuver, we couldn’t do it now, because technically the motion to waive the fee would not be attached to 2020-04, it would be just kind of a miscellaneous motion of the board to grant to apply without the fees on a new case AZ - I would make a motion to take an item of miscellaneous business out of order LM – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to take an item of miscellaneous business out of order AZ – Motion that the Board of Appeals Grant Martha Sanchez or her agent permission to file a new application relative to 157 High Street for two or three-unit waiving the $300 fee BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Grant Martha Sanchez permission to file a new application waiving the $300 fee AZ – Motion on ZBA-2020-04 §181.356 to Approve the Review striking condition one and replacing it with all inspections and occupancy permit to be granted and complied prior to occupancy for one unit to read as follow: 1. All inspections to be compliance prior the Certificate of Occupancy to be granted for the one unit only LM – Motion Seconded 7 Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Approved the Review with conditions ZBA-2020-05 Dennis Bradley 1151 MAIN ST 7:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.313 to stablish a car detailing business located in the Central Business District Map 17 Block 64 Lot 0 The virtual presentation was given by Mark Bradley on behalf of my father Dennis Bradley stating that from the last meeting the Board was asking to see the signs replaced. We've ordered the sign and we just waiting for the installation to come in, it's a laminated sign it's over $1000, so I think it's going be a beautiful sign. It’s going to bring a lot of luster and prestige in the community and I think it's going to be a sign that the board will be happy with LM – Is anyone here looking for any information on regards this case? None LM – Is anyone in support of the petition? None LM – Is anyone on the opposition? None BG – Visited the property, but I was unable to access it, but a lot is clean. It looks like is a good location to conduct an auto detailing business LM – Just go through the conditions: #1 hours of operations from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday – Saturday. Is that what's happening there? MB - The business hasn't started yet, but those are going to be the hours. LM – No non-detailing auto repairs to be conducted on-premises MB – That’s still the intention LM – No extra vehicles to be park on-site – No scrap parts on the exterior – All premises to be kept in a reasonably clean and well maintain conditions – Maximum of three vehicles on-site – Professional sign only – no vinyl banners or temporary sign allow LM – My suggestion on this case would be to let them get up and running, and then we can get another review when they would be working at their business LM – When is the intention to get this up and running? MB - Probably within the next month or two LM – So, I would like you to gets going and come back again MB - Sounds good GB - I visited the site as well it's clean MM - Just a comment Mr. Bradley on conditions number 7 conditions is no vinyl banners and temporary signs, and then I saw shortly after the meeting that's exactly that went up. When is that coming down? MB – So, we ordered a laminated sign, but I think we had that sign up even before the last meeting. So, it wasn't anything done intentionally to go against the board, but once the new sign is up that was coming right down. That's just a small advertisement get the community at least knowing that what's coming to be there MM – When is the new sign is coming in? MB – We already purchased it and it will be in by sometime next week MM – Okay, great thank you AZ - As everyone else pretty much it looks pretty good pretty tidy right now, I can't say much more about it till it opens 8 LM – So, let’s do a seven-month review because they'll be pretty busy after the snow and everything so we should check that out on April 2021 AZ - Motion on ZBA-2020-05 §181.313 to Continue the Review to April 13, 2021, amending condition #8 to said 7-months review, amending #7 for a clerical correction and conditions to be read as follow: 1. Hours of operations from 9:AM to 6:00PM Monday through Saturday 2. No non-detailing auto repairs to be conducted on-premises 3. No extra vehicles to be park on site 4. No scrap parts on the exterior 5. All premises to be kept in a reasonably clean and well-maintained conditions 6. Maximum of three vehicles on site 7. Professional sign only – no vinyl banners or temporary sign allowed 8. Seven months review – April 13, 2021 BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Continue the Review to April 13, 2021 with conditions ZBA-2019-40 Jose Santos 1033 MAIN ST 7:15PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.313C11 & 12 to occupy the building for Automobile Sales business and Repair services located in the Central Business District at Map 18 Lot 90 Block 0 The virtual presentation was given by Jose Santos stating that he has done all the Board had asked for, and that the property looks much neat and clean AZ – I did swing by, actually, it looks like the conditions are being met. It wasn't in operation when I swing by this afternoon, but the whole lot was clean, there was one unregistered vehicle a small green. I didn't catch the make and model but otherwise, the whole lot was cleaner with no signs of banners or vinyl or anything and it looks pretty much like what we've asked for BG - Visited the site a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Santos he was kind enough to show me around the garage. There were a couple of signs that were noted on the outside of the building, and he expressed an interest in refreshing them and putting them up. I think the lot is clean and I think he's running a good business there, so I was impressed by it GB - I've driven by that property at least a dozen times since the last meeting and only once have I seen tires outside in a rack, but I believe a good faith effort done has been made in general to keep those from the outside area. I know we discussed that last time and I think the property looks neat and clean and much better MM - Jose you've done a good job we appreciate it, I know it's a small lot and you only have a couple of days, so it's kind of challenging to be able to keep it all going in its small space. Couple times where vehicles have been worked on outside, so it just appreciates it if you can keep the vehicle repairs inside that would be good MM - Do you have any questions for the board or any comments, we would like to hear from you JS – Just a comment on the green car, that is my green card was brought to me 2 days ago and I just waiting to register and will get it out of there because it is for my personal use MM – Okay, if you could try to continue to keep the repairs inside the building instead of the outside that would be good JS – Okay, that’s what I am doing now MM – How’s the Board feels if we need another review in a year or we good AZ - I'm OK either way honestly whichever way the board wants to go on that, I don't have a strong feeling on it I think we've seen a strong good faith effort. If I had to choose right now I'd probably put a year review on, just because it's been such a tuft property in the past and it's good to just see this being this trends maintained over a 9 year, but if the rest of the board is comfortable with not. I'm comfortable with that as well because I do think Mr. Santos has made a very strong effort to comply with everything that we asked him to do MM - I'm OK with the year review BG - I will agree with the year as well GB - I agree with works for me AZ - Motion on ZBA-2019-40 under §181.313C11 & 12 to Continue the Review amending a condition #12 for one-year review to September 14, 2021 with conditions as follow: 1. No handmade signs/banners – Professional signage only 2. No vehicles for sale 3. No unregistered vehicles 4. No storage of vehicles other than active customers and employees 5. Auto repairs within the building only 6. No outside storage of vehicle parts 7. No visible trash to the front of the property 8. Dumpster to the right rear 9. Hours of operation Monday through Saturday 9:00AM to 4:00PM 10. Sunset Clause – Special Permit will terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of change of operation from Jose Santos 11. No outside storage of auto parts – tires- tire racks 12. One-year review – September 14, 2021 BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Continue the Review to September 14, 2021 with conditions ZBA-2019-13 Ruth Jeanete Guzman 324 LUNENBURGST 7:30PM Review of 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 The virtual presentation was given by Emmanuel Frias stating that they are working on the project, so far, I've been some surprised. From last time the project was discontinued because of asbestos that was discovered, but that situation was all address and we finally got this going. Two weeks ago, we did the siding on most of the house LM – Great, but it is seeing that its stop again, and is a lot of debris on the yard EF – I am going to talk to the owner on that, but at this time we are working on getting a plumber and electrician to work on the property. We are planning a move on the project as fast as we could, which has been stopped for many different reasons. However, I am going to make sure that it gets clean LM – Have you talk to the owner about how long this project is going to take? EF – It is hard to say how long the project it’s going to take because we are on the process on hiring a plumber and electrician and is going to be based on how long it may take for them LM – Are we talking 3-months or are we talking 6-months or a year? EF - I'll say 6-months LM- Is anyone here seeking any information on regards to this petition? None LM – Is anyone in the favor of the petition? None LM – Is anyone on the opposition? None 10 MM - I understand this year has been a challenge, but this project has been going on for a long time and I think it needs some closure. I've been looking at that property in horrific shape, none of the landscaping has been done. There is construction debris on the side of the building, in the rear of the building. I think the project needs to become a reality and some things need to start getting done, because I'm looking at it, and looking at not approving the review LM - Would you be interested in moving on with the 3-months review, to see if they can get some substantial work done? MM - I think we have too because the project stops and not moving at all LM - Do you want to tie a time frame, maybe that it gives them some motivation MM – 3-months is a long time and I expect to be substantially done in 3-months. We are coming into the cold weather in 3-months and any of the exteriors has been completed, such landscape, so I would like to hear from the applicant on it though what’s her feedback LM – So, we are seeking to see this project near done in 3-months, is this something doable or not? EF – Yes, the project can be mostly done in 3-months LM – Okay, I want you to understand that the Board is now going to look this substantially done in 3-months, just want to make it clear that Board members are a little frustrated not seeing anything done on the outside because again nothing was done for the landscaping, debris is outside and piles of mess AZ - First I agree with what has been said so far, about the 3 months review and in particular the outdoor things, are better to be done by then. If there's anything left that needs to be done it better to be inside because I do not want to hear in 3-months that we now need a six month of extension to wait for the ground to dry. I do want to ask I understanding that there's been a pandemic and everything, is there any reason that no one has been by the property just to clean up the overgrowth? because we've mentioned that as the Board many times on the past time that people been here, and it looks like the lawn may it’s been mowed maybe once at some point, it's not quite as bad as it was once, but there are still weed, bushes and all sorts of other stuff, that it looks awful. I like what I'm seeing with the siding and the windows and all that, the building is coming along but the grounds look awful, and I know it seems like a small thing but it's an important indicator of how you treat the neighborhood. Because the grounds or the part that don't make you any money until you're ready to sell or rent, so can you get come on over there and I'm talking like within the next week or so, can you get someone over there to clean it up? EF – Yes, there is the dumpster is coming on tomorrow to start the clean-up AZ – Okay, then if I drive there by Friday it should be all clean-up EF - Yes LM – Okay, jus the only thing we want to be very clear, we want to see the exterior done. I know You say that you are waiting for the electrician, but the exterior is the most important at this point, because of the fact we are going into the winter, and then you will be asking for the Spring. In winter you should be working on the interior EF – Yeah BG - I would agree with the 3-months review, I think that's beneficial to all of us. I also would like to see the yard cleaned up the debris, good faith and effort can be made that way, but in respect to the way the property looks. The building itself I see a good improvement on the side of the building with fresh siding, the last time I viewed the building was open to the weather, no anymore, there are new Windows on the side of the building, 11 that face the commercial side. I think it looks good, I think if they clean up the yard and do what we were requesting, I think they could be moving in the right direction GB - I'm in agreement that progress has been made, my notes from the last meeting since I wrote down the quote permit in jeopardy and they've made some progress, but I do think that 3-months window and substantial progress on the outside completing it and finishing up it needs to happen MM - I'm good with everything the board had said, I think we need at some point to have a completion date LM – Agree. We would like on the next meeting if they can have a date on mind AZ – Motion on ZBA-2019-13 under §181.3561to Continue the Review amending condition #10 to indicate that in December at which time it is expected that all exterior work and the majority of interior work will be completed. Furthermore, amending condition #11 to strike the reference to awnings which is already been done, and to add a completion yard to be cleaned up to an acceptable condition no later than September 15th one week from today. Conditions to read as follow: 1. Repair and paint all decking 2. Upgraded exterior uniform gutters, facial boards vinyl siding 3. Full rehab kitchen and bathroom front first floor 4. Paint kitchen and bathroom from the second floor with a granite kitchen counter and new vanity in the 3-units 5. Alter paving and landscaping as per plan is shown and filed with the Zoning Board 6. Repair slate roof or re-shingle with good-quality asphalt 7. All items outlined in Exhibit D, “Scope of Work”, to be completed 8. Special Permit shall terminate/expire if the property is sold or transferred prior all conditions from Zoning Board have been met 9. Property not to be occupied or put into use before Zoning Board findings that all conditions have been met 10. Review on December 8, 2020, at which time it is expected that all exterior and majority of interior work will be completed 11. Completion yard to cleaned-up to an acceptable condition no later than September 15, 2020 BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5-0 to Continue the Review to December 8, 2020 ZBA-2019-34 Dennis Bradley 12 FOSTER ST 7:45PM Review of Special Permit under §181.3562 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a three-family dwelling located in the Residential C District Map 41 Block 37 Lot 0 The virtual presentation was given by Mark Bradley on behalf of his father Dennis Bradley, stating that the last outstanding issue or concern for the Board was the parking. It wanted to have detailed lines that were angled, and I believe we were able to accomplish that. We also built some fencing tours that little pathway which I think is a concern to forward that they didn't want to make sure that all vehicles will be not using that pathway as any type of driveway. We added some fencing to kind of secure that and make sure that there is no vehicle can make it through there now, and I think those were the two main concerns with the Board last time we spoke, and I think we're opposites LM - On the actual driveway, I think it was a base coat that we're looking for MB – Right, I think that we have asphalt the driveway as well LM – Okay, great LM – IS anyone here seeking information? None LM – Is anyone in support? None 12 LM – Is anyone on the opposition? None BG - I did go by the property I notice that there is some fresh tart pavement in the parking area and there are destined parking spots for it. My question is this seems to be a bridge from the beginning of the parking area that still appears to have a rough coat and not a finish coat, and I can't remember if that was part of the condition the entire lot or was it just the parking area? MB - I think the main concern with the asphalt was with the old top that it wasn't able to draw the lines, this was the parking lines needed to be adequate for the type of asphalt, so I think that was a concern GB - I do recall that it was a topcoat and we were concerned about the striping, and we asked for new asphalt. I don't remember that we specify exactly how much to asphalt but if it is my assumption is if he faulted enough to get the parking lines in, then I'm fine with that MM - I think the board's assumption was and during discussions from the beginning was that the driveway and the parking get paved, it just seems it's been a struggle to get that piece of it. I only get concerned for a long time because Fitchburg is nothing but a hill and we're going to wash out and trying to plow that. It eventually it’s within short order going to be in disrepair, so I know what the Board's intent was. if the board in favor of having it completely paved the way it's supposed to be, but if the board once they deviate from the original thought process then with that LM – Mark, could you tell us what the intention was on that? MB – Well, from the meetings and from hearing what my father talks to the guy, who was paving the driveway. That was paving it felt that first, it sufficed with my dad told them, but you can't draw any lines for the parking on there the guy was like, “Oh yeah that's right you can't do it that” way and he's alright I'll go over there and I'll fix it”. I know my dad just reiterated to him the importance of being able to draw the lines up, but I haven't seen it so I'm not sure what it is. I know that you know we love to maintain all our properties, and if the plowing season comes and destroys it you know that driver will be fixed that's beyond acceptable AZ - The bulk of the project is looking good; the house is looking much better. I notice that there's one old window and still a little bit of debris but otherwise it looks like it's moving along quite well from the last point I saw. LM – Would we be putting as a condition since the petition is saying he's going to keep it in good condition, that the other part it is driveway then maybe we can put in a condition that it is to be maintained in acceptable conditions AZ - When the board has concerns about something and the petitioners said that they have no problems living up to those concerns, it doesn't buy into the petitioner to anything that they weren't already agreed to, so I don’t see why not sure LM – Does that satisfy you? MM - Not particularly because we set standards when we look at reinstatement and we agree with the petitioner, that has been listed as a group of conditions that all parties agreed to. It's just been a struggle with this particular one and I think the board is has come in good faith allowed them to take an abandoned building and convert it to 3-units and that was probably the major condition that the board's asked for. I just can't seem to get there, so we are more than one Board member, but my opinion is that. 13 I based my vote off of the scope of the project and what was agreed to be done, so I would like to see it paid because it's the right thing to do for the longevity of the property MB - I haven't seen it, so I'm not even sure what the Board recording to, but even the initial paved it was technically paved, but the only issue I recall from the last meeting was that type of pavement was in out of preferred for the painting of the line. So, I'm pretty sure that was the issue. It was addressed last meetings if it's not safe or it's not prudent for plowing purposes. I can bring that concern up and we have no issue repaving it LM - I'm thinking was more, not just that the lines will be painted, it was I think we're all in agreement that was more the base code then a topcoat and then it wasn't the grade that it should be for the actual finished product MB – Right LM – Any conditions to add on this petition? AZ - We can throw in the one about keeping things in good repair LM – I can go either away on this; I am kind of agree with Mike on this. We did say all conditions to be met before occupancy and we are struggling with getting these conditions met, we know that they are about 99% there AZ - My only concern about the conditions that we said if we're thinking of the terms of the paving and so forth. I'm not sure we were sufficiently clear in our initial conditions, but I'm looking at them now and it does say a blacktop driveway, but it doesn't get into any more detail than that I and the driveway is paved, or a given value of paved MM – It is a difference between paving and using regrind, it was not paved then it should have been paved and that was the intention that the board had, and the applicant accepted AZ - I agree I think we were certainly expecting more of a sort of a full pave like in my driveway or your driveway, and I think given the location and topography that will be important, so yeah, I'm good with that too AZ – Do you think a one month or two months window will be necessary to get the paving to be completed? MB - I think a month would be fine. I was just hoping that maybe scape the politics of having a formal meeting because this can be fixed easily. LM – Another suggestion I can think is that we have on a place that conditions to be met before occupancy being granted from the building Department. Could we leave that to the building inspector to verify on that prior occupancy? AZ – Absolutely we could that along the Building Commissioner is okay with having his inspector responsible for checking on that Mr. Commissioner – Absolutely I will put a note through the software for the inspector in charge be aware of that 14 AZ – Motion on ZBA-2019-34 under §181.3562 to Approved the Review strike condition #8 #8 and amend condition #6 to specify a fully paved blacktop driveway coupes with topcoat and sealant to read as follow 1. Vinyl siding 2. Roof to be replaced 3. Garage to be removed and add 6 angle parking spaces with the 3feet buffer from the boundary 4. Make green space on the left-hand side 5. Remove gravel driveway on the left-hand side 6. Elevate the land with proper curb cut and blacktop driveway 7. All conditions to be met before occupancy being granted from the Building Department BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5 – 0 to Approved the Review with conditions Greg Babineau had technical difficulties but was texted to Lauren stating that he also was on the favor of the petition ZBA-2019-02 Santiago Fernandez 84 PRATT ST 8:00PM 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 LM – Petitioner had some issues getting connections on the last meeting Mr. Commissioner – Lauren may I report what I saw on today’s inspection? LM – Yes, please Mr. Commissioner - I went out and met the petitioner out to the site, and he has a newly paved parking area. When I drove in the back, I saw that they had kept the Maple tree alive. They built a retaining wall, out of the pavers around that the Maple tree in the middle of the parking lot it looked really neat. He had hired a tree company to go to the back of the lot and to clear the overgrowth out, he was putting down some plantings in some stone for landscaping. Siders were installing new vinyl siding on the front of the building. I was only able to look through the windows, I only got into one unit because it was short notice and the other tenants weren't available, but I went into the middle unit and it was very nicely finished, and I asked the lady who lived there if she was happy to be there and she said was. He had installed central air conditioning three separate condensers for three-units, and I don't see a lot of spectral air being put in triple decker’s around here, so overall, I was impressed LM – And all the apartments in your opinion between you and Eric getting in there seeing to be in good occupancy Mr. Commissioner - I looked at the middle unit and it was very nicely finished, each of the unit's door has a glass window that you can look inside the kitchen, and what I could see was nice so I think he's well on his way to making that in two way successful LM – Eric one of the Building Inspectors at some point before he moved to another town, reported on this building. According to his report, he saw everything the same way as the Commissioner and everything was in condition on the inside Mr. Commissioner – Yes, and we're still going to have to go through for the final certificate of occupancy, but from what I can see unless the other rooms are all in disarray. I can see he's well on his way to having a nicely appointed building LM – So, at this point, you are going be down and getting the final for the occupancy any anyway 15 Mr. Commissioner – Yes LM - Anyone seeking any information regarding this case? None LM - Anyone in support? None LM - Anyone on the opposition? None BG - Don't have any questions I think it looks good AZ – No questions seems good to me LM – Okay, I don't have any further comments, I think we can move this up to the Building Commissioner to do the final sign off. I don't think we need another review on this one, I don't know how everybody else feels? MM - I would agree AZ – I also agree there isn’t any more we can do AZ – Motion on ZBA-2019-02 under §181.3561 to Approve the Review striking condition #3 and condition #1 satisfied to read as follow: 1. Driveway and parking to be re-paved – Satisfy 2. Property to be brought up to code according to Building Department regulations BG – Motion Second Roll Call Vote 5-0 to Approved the Review ZBA-2020- 17 Mark Klinger & Eyal Preis 50 FRANKFORT ST 8:15PM Continuance: MKEP 770 LLC Special Permit under §181.3522 to reinstate and change a vacant/abandoned building from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use located in the Residential B District Map 78 Block 29 Lot 1 The virtual presentation was given by David king on behalf of the petitioner stating that some things have transpired since our last meeting. In conversation, we were talked with the neighbor who owns 46 Frankfort Street, which happens to be the property on the left-hand side on the corner. Steven who owns that property made it abundantly clear to me, that he would like to sell his home and so we have entered into a so-far verbal agreement. We don't have anything finalized yet, but we're in the process of working out in arrangement to purchase his home, I've talked to Mr. Barbadoro a couple of times go back and forth. The investors talk to the engineer who kindly worked out a bunch of different ideas and plans, we have 3 new updated plans that were drawings by, just so you're clear those are cartoon drawings I added to my engineer’s plan; so, my engineer did not do that. We came up with three plans, the third plan we don't like it as much, but I'll discuss all three of them. So, the third plan was the option of purchasing the home tearing the home down and turning them into a huge parking lot, but to justify that expense we would have to add a third floor to the building to be able to warrant the expense and to get the return on investment. We're not in love with that idea, but that was option three. Option two is to purchase the home, re-do the lines on that property to give them parking at the front which they've never legally owned, and then take 18 and a half feet of the back of the property which would allow us six more parking spots. Then basically deed that land to 50 Frankfort Street which is an okay option; is not exactly the ideal. Option one is where we purchased the property at 46 Frankfort Street, we then do 100 years least for the backyard as a parking configuration for 50 Frankfort Street The investors retain ownership of both properties, and then they would either rent the house or split the house into two and make it part of the condo Association, “Not sure what they are going to do”. That's will allow us to get parking to the tune a total of 32 parking spots, so give us 16 parking spots in the backyard with a nice fenced-in area. What's nice about this plan is that right now at 46 Frankfort Street the backyard used to be this monstrous pool, which collapsed over the years, the fountain collapsed eventually. It's an area that has not been used by that home in many years, so the loss of it wouldn't be affected people living there at all because they never use that yard anyway or at least in probably 20 years. So, that would put up a nice fence and it would give us a great parking configuration a good traffic flow, some green space, the area for snow removal. It would take all the parking away from the edge of the building, that would remove all parking against the building, there will be no parking on Fayerweather Street, and it meets everything that the board had asked us to produce in a much more creative way. 16 The fourth option would be not to purchase that property if for whatever reason we can't purchase it then just going back to our original plan. Which gave us a total of 24 parking spots, for 12 units in the building. So, ideally, we would like the board to approve converting this non-conforming industrial commercial structure to a non-conforming residential structure, so we may proceed to the next step which is, of course, the planning board. Where the Planning Board would make sure that we meet the City of Fitchburg criteria for an old shell, with a new building and a nice parking, green space, layout, snow removal. We've come up with a plan for the snow removal that should it be needed, we were talking about putting in an electrified and a thermal heating system, that we put in the corner and it would melt the snow away once its build-up to a certain level. I'm hoping we don't have to go quite to that level, but that's an option that's been presented to us also LM - Anyone seeking information regarding this petition? None LM – Anyone on the position? None LM - Anyone on support? None AZ - I'm glad to see the petitioners getting creative, we raise problems they're coming up with solutions that are always nice to see. Also, just for clarification for the benefit of our petitioners, I'd like to note that, if any petition coming before us, as any kind of zoning or variance or anything. We are already operating in a residential district, it has more to do with specifics of the proposed use relative to the property, but that's just technical. I notice that Mr. King mentioned that in the last couple of meetings, so I just wanted to clarify that so that we're on the same page BG - I think it's favorable to look at the potential of acquiring the abutting property, certainly would remedy a lot of the questions that we had in terms of parking and snow removal. The fact that investors are looking at purchasing the building next door, that will open up a whole new Avenue of something that it's great for the project. GB – Couple questions petition stated a verbal agreement to purchase the property, seems that it sorts that of an informal statement. Is there a purchase price that's been discussed? How deep into that discussion did you get with the owner of 46 Frankfort Street? DK - I dropped off a document to Steven and explain to him that we were going to give him legal rights to his parking spot, that he never owned because of leases. He called me up that he says: (Hi this is Steven and I dropped off that letter to ask greatest is I don't want to live here I don't want to live next to 12 condos you're welcome to buy my home I'm leaving). I said it wasn't quite the answer I was expecting, but we have tentatively come up with an offer price that I'm working with him and his father. They seem to be quite pleased with what we're offering, so at this point, we are kindly waiting for your approval and then we will go ahead and make the final contract with them, but until we can see some light at the end of the tunnel, we've spent an awful lot of engineering money and a lot of hours on this project and my investors have a lot of other projects that they have me working on. So, we kind of need to move to the next level GB – That's an additional expense cost in the project, is that will change the existing plans presented for the number of units in the existing structure that you're going to renovate? DK – Yes, it does if we purchased the building, due to the cost of the building which is expected to be about $250,000 and the cost to put in the parking lot, the fence, and everything. We are going to have about 32 spots, so we would be shooting for 16 units. I don't think it'll get to 16, but it'll probably be 15 to 16 because that's the Max we could have. We just have to figure out at the end of every day the buildings that have to physically allow us to do what we want to do, so the goal would be to go up to a 16, but not to exceed the 2 parking spots per unit. LM – Option #3 you're looking at six more units, if you tear down the building need to absorb the cost for tearing down the building, so that's just that six more units you were talking about 12 to 13 six more would be 18 or 19 DK - Not really, if you read very carefully when we ask for a third floor to be added to that building. 6 on that and then probably would going give us a total of 49 parking spots. So, technically that would give us 24 units in the building. I don't think we could get to 24, I don't think there's a physical way to do that it would end up 17 with too much in the building, but we would be looking for six more on the top floor. Then we would probably divide this second floor and take some of those four-bedroom ones, divided into twos or single so we probably end up with anywhere between 20 to 22 units in the building LM - I think the very easiest thing for us to do right now, is to look after #3 and see if the board is interested in option #3 and just so that we can kind of narrow things down here AZ - I would say #3 is a non-option, it's a complete nonstarter from every perspective I'm willing to as we go forward options one and two are viable options for discussion, option #3 I don't think there's any possible way I vote yes on that one LM - I think we are all in agreement that we were concerned about 12 to 13 units, and on the school system on it. The neighborhood, the density in the neighborhood and now, we're doing that, so I think this is not a viable option in my opinion, but the other members have to say BG - I agree with what Anthony has said three is not an option 1 and 2 I feel more favorably about GB - I'm in complete agreement to eliminate option #3 MM - I agree LM – Option #3 it off the table LM – Option #2, are we increasing the number of units? DK – Option #2 would be 28 parking spots, so ideally, we would try to increase the density to 14 units MM - We all need to be conscious that if you're going to assuming this is a non-conforming lot, so if you make it more nonconforming are there going to be some zoning issues LM - I believe he's looking at making it 10,000 square feet when he's done DK - That's 100% correct, we have committed to the city that we would not go under 10,000 square feet MM - Setbacks are all good, frontage? DK - yes DK – So, showing on the screen, in this area where says parking for 46 Frankfort. essentially right now that's a 14 foot by approximate 44 feet of 45 feet. So, what we're going to do is we're going to extend it out a little further, push it over a little bit into the space to make sure that we had enough space. So, the City of Fitchburg regulations require that a 9 foot by 18 1/2 would be a parking spot, and then you require to have the offsets on both ends. So, I was able to get 6 parking spots in the back of the building with a nice fence, so people would drive in on Fayerweather Street, pull into these parking spots. Then we got rid of the spots on the back street, but unfortunately, I have to keep the spots next to the building to get my capacity, and then I got 10 spots were going to tear down the garages. In the front of the building I've got the 6 spaces, so when it's all settled done, I've got about 27th parking spots MM – During the site visit, nobody was a fan of the parking right in front of the building. DK - Correct MM - How can we address that? DK – The problem with this whole thing is, no nobody is a fan of this, nobody is a fan of putting parking here. This is an okay solution, but there is a huge area right where the pool used to be, and that is a completely wasted space that's hasn’t been used by anybody. There's a nice fence, with a nice backyard and to put a fence across approximate to the back area that nobody's used in forever and turn that into a parking lot. It actually will work better, it's safer because you're not backing out onto a paper street. So, you are having all car and auto movement done on private property, which is from a safety standpoint that everybody wants. So, I think option #2 is viable, but option #1 is a better plan for the City 18 GB – What is the difference between option #1 and option #2? I understand the layout in the parking, but it seems that you are purchasing the home either way for option #1 and option #2. So, what we're talking about here is how much paving and parking you want to propose, which is going tie into a further discussion of how many units you want to put in DK - If I and the investors market it out, take everything you asked us for. Everything we talked about your goal was to bring us safety, nice clean offsets, parking away from the building, a place for snow collection, not to block up the private paper Street, green space. One is going to be more sellable and two it's more feasible for and all-around environment. Until Steven called me, we didn't have a good answer for you for all those statements that you had. So, when Steven said he wants to leave and that he is done, so now we've got a whole different ball game. So, when you compare option #2 and option #1. Option #1 you still have the same house configuration, you've always had they still have the same parking they've always had, we still have the same fence that they've got to this day, but now we've been able to take all the parking away from the building. We've been able to open the whole street, so we don't care how much snow falls there is tons of room to push snow and still leave lots of room for cars to go by. Now all the cars are backing in an out of a private area, they're not going out into any streets and not backing into any Street. Traffic flow is a nice clean transition from either back out on the street or across the back of the building and then down through the front GB – So, ultimately though the difference here is that, if we go with option #1, you're going to ask for more units as opposed to option #2 that would be fair to say right? DK - Not necessarily so originally, we asked you for 12 units that have always been the original plan, but when some of the concerns you had were children in the school system. And when you put 4-bedroom, 3- bedroom units you're encouraging children in the school system, that's pretty much natural assumption. So, we are talking to bring them down to two-bedroom and a couple of one-bedroom, which is going to reduce the chance of children in the school system, get us a better yield, give us a little more breathing room. If you look the option 1 right now, it says 32 parking spots, and when you go to number 2 it has 28 parking spots. However, when to the Planning Board and ask them for more than 12, that's the question if we ask for 14 or 16 LM – So, what is the number in option one for the number of units? DK – So, option one is not to exceed 16 units and option 2 is not to exceed 14 units LM – If we are going have parking set up the way we are, I'm not sure what option one and option two have to do with each other, because are going to include the house and the backyard. I will rather not see the six spaces in the front, because we need some green space on the front of the property. Can we look into adding some parking to the rear, and leave some on the side on the options one and put some parking in the back? DK – Ultimately, we want this to be a beautiful property, just before the meeting AL had sent me some diagrams that showed the whole front of the building with all grass, we're going to take down the tree at the front. We're going to put a beautiful lawn and no parking at all, I think in all these situations is how many units can we get that are sellable, because they have to be sellable and what is the best configuration for the city and the neighborhood and the people will live there, and what is financially feasible for the investors to make sure that they're not doing this to make 10 dollars. So, ultimately if we can make a beautiful front yard with all grass and it's a spectacular building, that you drive up to it's going to increase the value of these units and it might only be 2 or 3 grant, but if you put in 10 units $3000 is $30,000, if it's $5000 is $50,000 LM - I just feel like around all the three sides of the building is just so much parking that I'd like to get some green space on the front if we could. So, if meets 14 units and we can get the parking in the backside, I would like to see something like that, more than seeing parking on every side. I feel like on the option two you got that face there, that we could eliminate those other spots DK - There is no question that investor wants to do the green space on the front, that’s our goal. We want the architect to get into this building to tell us what we can yield out of this, and he's going to work with me and investors to try and figure out how many units. That’s we would have to balancing it out between a beautiful first impression of a building, a nice layout inside the building, meeting the demands of the city, and meeting the demands of the neighborhood. The rest to come up with the perfect solution that sells for the most amount of profit, that's the best way to work it and that's what we're going to do 19 MM - just help me out between one and two, option number one has 16 units #2 has 14 units correct? DK - That is correct, now keep in mind that's maximum based on parking MM – I like the fewer units, can we look at 14 units but using the angled parking that you had on option #1 DK – So, number one is the one shows a total parking spot of 32 MM – How about 14 units 28 parking spots, and can we use more of the land for parking and get rid of the parking in front of the building. Up against the building and then some of along Frankfort Street DK- Anything is possible, originally the plan was to do 12 units in building and not to acquire the neighbor’s yard. We started with 12 units in the building with 24 parking spots around the building, and we had it to the point where it was comfortable it was legal it met all the requirements, met all the rules and regulations for parking for the city of Fitchburg, but now we've going to buy a property and make it bigger, but you're saying we only want to go to 14 units you're making this very expensive for the investors MM - Not trying to do that, does option #2 include the purchase of 46 Frankfort or not? DK - Correct option 2 an option 1 includes the purchase of 46 Frankfort MM – So, what dictates the difference between option one and option 2? DK - If we're going follow the rules and regulations of the City of Fitchburg, we can't have a lot under 10,000 square feet. So, with option two, this lot is now 10,000 square feet, it allows the investors to turn around and flip this house. Take the back of this property and turn it into a parking lot. It's going to make it rather difficult to sell this with a 100-year lease, so the investor planned to keep this building not to flip it. Option two is more about to bring it and slice up the lot, we get 10,000 square feet and we dump it and move on. MM - I don't think anybody does not like the project, just think it's the struggle with the parking, but I think we're getting there GB - It seems to me that we're talking about either you're purchasing a piece of property, and what you're trying to get is the 16 units in this building with option one. LM – What do you think they are going to be sold for? DK - It will depend on whether there are 1, 2, or 3-bedrooms, but typically two-bedroom units right now in the City of Fitchburg in the condition that we're going to hand these over we're hoping they'll sell in the high twos’ LM – Okay DK - 3 bedrooms we thought would sell as high as three, 2 bedrooms we sell in the 260 to 270. Anywhere between 220 to 280 depending on whether it's two or three bedrooms, but now that we're trying to taper this building to 2 bedrooms and a couple of 1 bedroom to keep kids out of the school, as you requested. We now need to increase the density to keep the kids out of the school, as you've asked for LM - I don't think that was the primary, one of the things in the air was the density in the neighborhood. So, I just I don't want to think we're trying to keep kids out of the school system LM - I feel like there's some compromise between option one and option 2 and I think of eliminating those six spaces in the front and you are close on this MM – Did you approach the church with some land? DK - We approached the church, but it's not very convenient for them to give us anything, because of the way their parking lot structured, so that's not a great option. The other option was to maybe try to take where their gate goes and take into the back there but unfortunately, it's just that's where you need to push the snow, so nobody can get in and out of there. Honestly, plan #1 is really good because it meets everything you're asking for, maybe we can state the 16 spaces and turn him into 18 by moving that fence more to the left, but that's not going to be done until engineering and architects do all the stuff that we have to do, but what it is market nail needs to see. The City wants to move forward with this and the only way to do that is for you to approve this 20 AZ - If I'm understanding this correctly, and I'm asking both the petitioner and the board members. As I understand it a pitch here in terms of the number of units for option one is essential that more units will equal fewer people total LM - Yes AZ - That does answer some of what we're trying to address because the other concern was the traffic in the neighborhood. If the lesser number of poodle occupants will end up meaningfully less than that traffic, because I would love to see the six spaces move too, and I understand that we can't necessarily condition the whole thing on that, because you got to make the numbers properly. I like option one, I think it's a very creative design particularly with the 100-year lease to solve the problem of not otherwise being able to take that much land off the 46 Frankfort lot. I feel like we're right on the Cup LM - On the 16 parking spots those are angle, what is the width on those? DK - I believe they have to be 10 1/2 feet wide and they have to be 24 feet long and has to be 14 feet between them which is what we have there. That's exactly to scale with an offset, the fence and offset off the building AZ - You may be able to squeeze those couple extra. Are those being 60 degrees there? DK – Those I believe are 45 AZ – Those are 45 them you would need 12.7 wide, if you're looking at a 10 foot 10 1/2 foot then you're looking at 60 degree AZ - If the spaces do happen to be off by say half afoot, that is something the planning board would be empowered to look, at the same time that they are approving the rest of the petition. LM - We need to understand that as a Board member on some of these projects we need to work collectible, to know where we are going. Therefore, we need to know the number of units, the number of spaces, and how the exterior is going to work, and spend some time over there, know the density of the neighborhood. I do not have a problem when you are talking about this one will be 55 and older and tandem parking, maybe there's something that we could consider. The same number of units and parking to be well labeled by unit, and some may only have one vehicle, some others may have two. We can allow the thought of some tandem parking, get numbers to a point that is reasonable for them to buy 46 Frankfort, so they can have the 10,000 square feet that they need, to get some of the parking that they need on the backside. We eliminate that front and to get some grass there. And try not to excess 16 units, is that too much, go for 14, at some point, we have to decide. This is a viable project for this neighborhood, we need to rehabilitate this building from an abandoned status for over 30 years. There are options that we could make recommendations to the Planning Board if we want to be this building re-habilitated BG - I like what you say Lauren the over 55 with the tandem parking, I've always been in favor of that. I agree that something has to be done with the building, it's been vacant for 30 years is a long time, so I'd like to see something nice done with it GB - I agree 100%, I wanted to get the yes on this from day one. What about is it compromised, looking at option one, removing the six spaces out front, adding two spaces to the side of the building where they are currently were but have removed that gets you up to 28 spaces with 14 units. If you look down on option two, move 2 spaces back and you would still obtain 28 spaces, you remove the six from the front, you got 14 units GB - If we are going let it go with any one of these plans, then I would let it go at option one MM - Maybe the best approach would be to look at approving a predetermined number of units. and somehow putting some language in that we want to see 2 parking spots per unit. Some language that we're only going to allow for the number of units, based on the number of parking spots that the planning board will approve. This isn't a certified plan and it's going to need to go before planning, and maybe they can flush out this part of it 21 MM - The long and the short of it is, I would only want to approve some units that would accommodate two parking spots per unit and not a lesser amount you know maybe with a strong recommendation some recommendations about trying to possibly no having the parking on the Frankfort Street side or up against the building AZ - I believe that we've reached the point that we've thrown out enough ideas and enough sort of suggestions, strong preferences, but at this point, we delve into it further and to try to iron out every detail, would be letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. This is an abandoned building that's been vacant for a long time, in disrepair, it's an eyesore. Something's got to be done with it, and no private investor is going to come along and spend the money to demolish it to the ground, the City doesn't have the money to do that. So, we've got to have something done with it and this is honestly especially, after this very strong effort addressing the concerns the broderies, if not the perfect the best plan, we are at all likely to get. Anytime in the foreseeable future, I feel like we need to be considering, not just the options in front of us, but also what is happens if we just say no. Which in this case, if you balance option one, or some close variant on option one, against our ideal scenario it may still look like we've got some ground to cover but if you balance option one against option 0 if you consider what happens if we approve something that looks mostly like option one versus what happens if the project falls through and the building remains vacant. I think it's a very strong argument in favor of granting this on our end and then kicking it off to the planning board to work out the details. I think I'd be okay with a thing as long as it looks something mostly like option one, it's planned well out not perfect, but I think I can get there BG - I agree with what Anthony says LM - I think between options one and two, there's not much of the big difference. I see petitioner is looking at 14 or 16 units, I don't think you necessarily need to 16 units, because we have six faces in the front, and we can move the spaces around. I don't see the difference between what you're investing at 46 Frankfort on option one option two, what's the big expense that you need to get out of this, is it painting what is it? So, we are eliminating paving and putting in green space there, so I think we should be able to come out with a viable plan. I think Michael has suggested 14 units, the plan doesn't change all that much with the parking DK - Option two we flip the building we sell it. Option one is they're holding on to it, so now you have a $400,000 expense that you're not recuperating. MK - I think you're all right with option one is a great option, to cross the option we have to make sure it all works out numerically obviously, but I think it is the best option that meets the demands and the questions that you all have had over the past meetings. As David said earlier 16 units, I have been in construction for over 20 years. I'm not sure this building could do 16 units really, but we just wanted to say hey if we're able to do this maybe have the option for 16 units, but yes, we agree with two parking spaces per unit. That's the City Zoning law, we're going to try to abide by, that's what we want to do. So, if the Board approves this so we can move to the next level and continue and put more money towards it. Knowing that at least we can make it into units and figure out the best possible way to meet all the requirements for you and ourselves. We're going to put our best foot forward and get this done and make this dilapidated building into something usable and to make it enjoyable for the next 100 years MM – Are these going to be one or two-bedrooms? MK – 2-bedrooms plus office, it'll be advertised as a third room, but that would be considered an office and, on the plans, and everything that's how we sell it not as a preventive MM - I think I'm comfortable with us moving forward tonight and with some conditions LM - Any suggested conditions MM - Just for clarification we're just voting on a special permit for a nonconforming use. Conditions some of the type that the special permit is to the applicant and not with the land. So, if they don’t move ahead with the special permit then the next developer needs to re-apply 22 LM – I think that they have put a lot of effort into this that I don't want to see the project to go, and I want them to understand that our confidence is in them MM – Also I think we need to pick a plan, but it's not in concrete, in other words, is it going to be option one or option two with somehow craft some language that whatever we come up with for the maximum number of units that the, if the planning board's only going to approve 24 spaces well it's going to be 12 units if they only approve 28 them it could be 14 units. To leave some flexibility for the project LM – So, we can say not to exceed the number of units that we are approving MM - Also, a language that the number of units is also dictated by the number of parking spaces the planning board to approve because we don't want the planning board to approve 10 parking spots but for 16 units because there's such a confined project. Remember this isn't leaving any parking for visitors LM – We may want some suggestions that we would like to see the green space in the front, if possible, and then maybe a combination of the two plans BG - I'm in favor of 2 parking spots per unit whatever that works out to be, I would like to see the six parking places that are proposed in the front to go away. So, that we could have green space, I think the building is attractive architecturally and with some green space in the front would compliment that, so I would like to move forward with this today GB - Brian I would defer to you; do we take up on the offer of snow Melter? only because of all of the potential space is going have to pile snow and is no way around it BG - Well as I recall he said that was going be costly, but I think it would be a huge asset to have something like that, to eliminate as much snow as possible and I would certainly be in favor of so. I think that was a great idea or at least mention it, so the planning board takes it into consideration AZ - I think that the way we could go forward with this would be, to present all of the sorts of suggestions and preferences in the form of the record findings. And then the actual conditions that I would suggest would be that the ultimate layout that is approved subject to a final plan similar to option one. With conditions of no more than one unit per two parking spaces approved by the planning board and no greater than I be a comfortable thing no greater than 16 unit if the board wants to say something more like 15 or 14, we could get that too. LM – So, what conditions you are suggesting? Michael had a couple of conditions which is a sunset clause AZ - I would agree with rephrasing that, I wouldn't put it as a sunset clause because that would make it so that even if the project is completed it would have to be reapplied for, once it changes hands. I would set it up that it expires if it is transferred prior to completion LM – What is the whole project is ready to go and then they want to sell it to someone else? AZ - They could come back to us and ask for that condition to be amended at that point MM - I only have one concern, issuing a special permit that somebody can just turn around and sell that's all I'm concerned AZ- Exactly, so that's where we would put a condition that just says: The special permit shall expire and or be revoked if the property is sold or transferred prior to completion of the project as planned AZ -So, that way if they finish the project and scale it on as they plan to they're all good, but if they crap out halfway through an want to sell it on then whoever they're selling it to, either whoever they're selling it to would have to come to us, and reapply or they would have to come to us and say, look we've got this new investor who wants to take over where we left off and they're going to commit to the same plans, and we transfer it, and then we could say yes on review we are willing to amend this condition LM - I guess Mike is saying if they couldn't fulfill their propagation of building meantime thing, he understands it going be sold as separate units AZ – Right, and we should include that in the condition to say: special permit shall expire if all or part of the property is sold prior to completion of the plan as approved 23 MM - Assumption is, as units are completed, they're going to be sold. MM - I don’t overthink this, let's just come up with some very simple conditions AZ – Right, just that one, in particular, is one that has to be worded carefully if we want it to do what we want and not have unintended consequences AZ - Can we asked petitioner it is whether it would be viable for investors to expect that the whole project will be done before units are sold, or is this something were to make it viable it has to be sold as-is completed MM - I have a feeling that there'd be sold all of them LM – They are going to go to planning to figure out the spaces, we are not approving any parking, we can pass along our suggestions, but it doesn't have to be option one pr option two AZ - I think we could word it so that we don't necessarily pick between option one or option two, or we should word it in a way that makes it clear that were approving it subject to something similar to one of those options. In other words, we're not approving it, if the sale 46 Frankfort falls through we're back to the drawing board because something that either option one or option tow is not viable LM - If we could come to the number of units, I feel like to be able to say the number of units to move forward with, but I think we need to express and not necessary conditions; will be more of a suggestion that we want to give to the Planning Board so that they understand the basis of how we came to after determination. We're interested in seeing this project move forward, but here are some suggestions that we have in writing separately to the planning board AZ - I would agree as long as we have our actual conditions ironed out before we moved to a vote and as long as we have any necessary findings that support those decisions and conditions, then we can come up with non- binding suggestions MM - I think we should put approval for up to 14 or 16 units whatever the board chooses, and then a condition that each unit must have two onsite parking spaces and just trying to come up with the language that, somehow the maximum of the 14 or 16 units not to exceed the number of units allowed by the parking spaces approved by the planning board LM - I'm going just quickly looking at the option one of the 16 units, but some tweaking on the plan of option one BG - Yes GB - Yes MM - I'm more of the 14 units, but if the boards think that allowing the flexibility equals 16, I'm okay with AZ – Yes, I am on board LM - I'm on board for the 16 with suggested parking, which gives a little more flexibility it is going help them with the entire project. Obtaining a 46 Frankfort for the 100 years least, still, there's a lot of things that are going go into this, so I'd like to give them that flexibility AZ – Motion on ZBA-20-20-17 under §181.3522 to Approved the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. Approval up to 16 condominiums, which are to be in one or two-bedroom configuration without restricting the possibility of having a non-bedroom office annex to them 2. Parking must be at least two parking spots approved by the planning board per unit 3. No parking on Fayerweather Street 4. This Special Permit is nontransferable and shall be revoked if the property is sold prior to the completion of construction and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy GB – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Approved the Special Permit 24  1. MISCELLANEOUS LM – Should we get our suggestions done tonight? BG – Yes, it’s all fresh in our brain right now LM - Looking at the plan on option 1, which is purchasing 46 Frankfort Street will be a hundred-year lease to get the two spaces per unit, mostly on Pratt Street. Board of Appeals' suggestion would be to eliminate the 6 spaces at the front and be used for green space on Frankfort Street if they need to get a couple more spaces, 2 or three more spaces near the 10 parking spaces close to the building, that could be a suggestion. We would not like to see any parking on Fayerweather Street, because we need that snow removal area, to be free and clear and the pathway to be free and clear. Another suggestion would be about ice melting LM – Anything else that we would like to add to our suggestions? AZ - Well we did stay two spaces per unit, so I think that they are going to note that we did do that on purpose, but the intent is simply so that if they can accommodate a lower number of units without purchasing 46 Frankfort they are still welcome to do so. provided that they abide by the conditions we set MM - This might be one of those cases where one or two of us needs to go to the planning board meeting just express the boards finds, so they understand that we don't want the planning board to be presumptuous in saying well zoning board approves 16 units so we've got to find parking for those 16 units. We’re saying that we don't have an approved parking plan, so once the tape measure gets put to the road, they may find that there's this is just not that many and the number of units would have to diminish. LM - I thought that the whole idea for these suggestions was about? BG - But I understand Mike's point, we want to make sure this is a big deal LM – Understand, I can certainly get on the phone with Mike O’Hara. Are they doing Zoom meetings? That’s how they are conducting right? Secretary - Yes LM – So, we may be able to jump into their meeting and reconnect right back to our meeting, since that they do hold their meeting the same night as us LM – Could the secretary check on the Planning Board agenda and let us know when and what time this petition will be heard with them? Secretary – Sure, I could do that 2. ADJOURNMENT 25