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 +1(631)992-3221 PERSONS THAT WISH TO PARTICIPATE PLEASE EMAIL mmata@fitchburgma.gov MEETING MINUTES – OCTOBER 13, 2020 MEETING TIME: 6:00 PM 1. Call to Order PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. Communications ATTENDANCE: 3. Hearings CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2020-06 Victor De Oleo 33 FOREST ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.356 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a two-family dwelling located in the Residential C District Map 67 Block 102 Lot 0 The Virtual presentation was given by Victor De Oleo, stating that he has been working on it. The driveway is done and currently working on the porch, and this is the last thing I need to fix, but with the whole COVID situation, it has been hard to hire a contractor. The contractor said it would take about 2 weeks to do it, and it's the last thing to fix on the house. I change the view of the porch. LM – So, the porch and the shed you are saying that you are waiting on? VD – It was the shed, the porch, and the driveway, but the driveway is done, we are taking step by step, and now we are focused on the porch LM – So, the number one criteria that we have asked on the decision made, and it said driveway and paving area to be re-paved, and that has been done? VD - yes is done LM – Shed to be re-sided. Are you working on that? VD – No, on the waste wood underneath, we removed it, and we put two blocks of new wood on it to get rid of that, and it's done too. LM – On the shed? VD – Yes LM - But it's not re-sided yet? VD - We have to put like two-block underneath that, which was the only thing missed. I got some pictures if I could email them to you, about the driveway being done the before and after LM – The roof? VD - We check the roof, but the contractor said he didn't see anything wrong with the roof. I'm going to be working on the porch during the next week. LM - You utilizing this property as a two-family home? VD - Yes LM - Has the building inspector or commissioner been into the property? VD – No, since the one-time inspection when I first obtained the property LM – So, no one had been checking your work at this time? VD – No LM - Is anyone seeking information on this case? None LM - Is anyone in support of this petition? None LM – Is anyone in opposition? None MM - I visited the property today with Mr. Byrne, and the driveway entrance has been paved. Still, the board has asked that the driveway and the parking area be re-paved, which has not been done. MM – Secondly, it looks like the shed is painted, but I'm not sure if it was actually re-sided. As far as the roof being repaired, I'd like to ask the petitioner Victor. Did you have a licensed contractor to look at the roof? VD – No MM – So, there were some visual concerns the board had about the roof. I would expect somebody that's licensed would look at the job. MM - Secondly, the front porch, if you could Victor, please look at the board's request for what we're asking to be done because it doesn't appear any of the work that has been done is a bit minimal and that you pay attention to our request so that you don't have to continue reviews. MM – Another thing that concerns me is the unregistered abandoned vehicle in the back of the property. I'm going to say it appears to be a huge plastic container, about 2 feet by three feet in size. It looks like it's filled with automotive antifreeze, and it's wide open. It would be beneficial if you could have trashed the liquids and the vehicle addressed fairly quickly. Through the board, I request that the building Department inspect what the board has requested to be done before issuing an occupancy permit. JB - Michael said everything that I had to said BG - I visited the property as well, and Michael has really covered everything that I had to said GB - I also visited the property, and I think Michael covered all over this. I can't speak to the roof. I wasn't sure what was about it, I could take a look, but I couldn't see anything. But that deck the front porch area, I know that the floorboards definitely were in rough shape. So, I didn't think that could get done, but the applicant had mentioned that he hadn't gotten to that yet, but other than that, it's all been mentioned thus far. LM - Just a couple of things that have to be looking at, the roof need to look and repair by a licensed contractor, and the deck also to be looked at by a licensed professional VD - I just said I would be working on the porch next week; about the driveway, I thought it was just the driveway. I didn't think it was parking too. LM - It says the driveway and parking area to be re-paved MM - The request was to have the driveway and the back re-pave parking area; the front is city property. VD - Oh yeah, that's what I thought, but I thought it was just the driveway. 2 LM – No, it is the driveway and all the parking area in the back of the property VD – Sorry, I just thought it was a driveway. We are working on and getting everything set up with the porch. We're going to be doing this about next week, and I had to get a licensed contractor to look on the roof. It doesn't seem anything bad from the outside. About the car, yes, I work on auto parts. I didn't know that I couldn't have an unregistered car, it is my car in the back of my house. JB - It's an unregistered vehicle, and it's not undercover. It is sitting in the middle of the parking area. LM – It is not that you have it in a garage. VD – It is my car; I just cleaning it and fixing it, I work in out apart, and I do things little by little. It is on the back of the parking area. LM – It is an unregistered vehicle, and unregisters vehicles usually look unsightly. VD - I'm trying to fix it, and that's why I haven't registered yet. LM - how long is it going take you to take the vehicle up and running VD – The problem with this vehicle is that the starter motor is not working, and I order it and then get it fixed. So, it won't take more than two months. LM – Okay, and how long do you think it's going to take to get all these items done properly? VD - I'll be working on the porch. LM – So, give you some more time to get some things done. Do you have people living in this space? VD - Just me and my family LM - My understanding is that you not supposed to have anyone living in the property until there's an occupancy permit has been issued VD – No, I was told on the first floor, because we just bought the house and I could rent the first floor, but you said not. It's been hard for me, paying the mortgage and fixing this out of my packet. That's why I'm trying to fix things little by little because I couldn't do everything at once LM – Michael, I wasn't on the first hearing petition but was this a case where he was allowed to reside in one of the units? MM - I would have to look at the minutes; it's an abandoned home, so I would assume that the building Department would inspect it before anybody could move into the house. And allow for occupancy or not based on it being brought up to code, so I might have to defer to Mark, who may not know the answer right now. He may have to do some research himself. VD – There have been about 3 inspectors in the house MM – Okay, so to speed some of the other things that we can move along, the vehicle appears that it has been there for a long time. The city has an ordinance regarding abandoned vehicles, so the vehicle needs to be fixed and register. If that is antifreeze in that container outback, I hope you would take the time to clean that up along with the other trash in the rear of the property. That would be most helpful, and then as far as the porch being re-built, you might want to look at the petition to make sure you understand what the board is asking. Have a licensed contractor read it; that way, would do it the way the board is asking for LM - I think that what's need to do is to get the Building Commissioner's Office out there as soon as possible. Building Commissioner - I see that the wiring inspector has been out. He approved the wiring reassuring. You have gotten a plumbing permit, so the plumbing inspectors went out, and that's also reassuring. Still, I think I 3 can help you figure out what to do with the porch. If you send me an email tomorrow, I will go over it. VD - Will do Building Commissioner – I will go over the property with you and discuss your next step, but I don't want to waste this Board's time. This Board doesn't want to keep revisiting your case. They want to see it get done. Building Commissioner – So, you need to get the car fix, registered and insured, or moved on. VD - I'm so sorry, it's a difficult time for me, and I just bought the house this year. I wasn't able to rent the first floor because the board told me not to. MM - We appreciate it, and we know that people run into unforeseen circumstances whenever people take projects like this. We want to keep this thing rolling and get it completed. VD - I feel bad because I know you want me to fix the house correctly and get it in good shape, but I can't lie. I am doing this step by step. And I understand that your job is to have the house looks good around the neighbors and other houses. LM – We are just going to adjust some of these conditions and move on for this hearing for tonight, and we are going to do getting another 5 or 6 months to get through this time LM – At this point, we are going to put this in Building Commissioner's hands to oversees and make sure that he gets into that apartment where the people are living and ensure that it is safe Building Commissioner – Agree, I need to be there to make sure everybody is safe and make sure that the building is up to code. MM – Motion on ZBA-2020-06 under §181.356 to Continue with the Review to March 9, 2021, with the following Conditions: 1. Entire driveway and parking area in the back to be completely re-paved 2. Shed to be re-sided 3. Roof to be properly repaired by a licensed contractor 4. Porch to be re-built to code, decking to be replaced, and columns to be installed by a licensed contractor 5. Property to be used as a two-family only 6. Outside storage and liquids to be removed 7. Abandoned vehicle to either be repaired or removed within two months 8. Building Commissioner or Inspector to inspect the property as soon as possible and again prior to occupancy 9. Review March 9, 2021 10. The first floor not be occupied until all conditions are met JB – Motion Seconded Roll call Vote 5–0 to Continue the Review to March 9, 2021 ZBA-2019-36 Glorie Lopez 16 GLEN AVE 6:10PM Review of a Variance under §181.961 to erect a 24’ X 24’ attached garage with a bedroom above leaving approximately 18’ from the property front yard set-back located in the Residential A-2 District Map 208 Block 15 Lot 3 The virtual presentation was given by Edward Plowden and Glorie Lopez, stating that we have a company that will start with the project. Submitted the building permit, and the building inspector had asked for additional information from GBI. Currently, GBI is collecting the data to provide that to the building inspector. LM - Is that the contractors that you are talking about for the estimate? GL – Yes 4 LM – Alright, how much time do you think you may need if you get the price you're looking for? GL - The plan is from speaking to them that we would definitely start this year, so we hope before the end of the year and before the snow starts. As long as we get the approval from the building inspector, they will start. LM - Is there anyone here seeking information on this petition? None LM - Is anyone in opposition? None LM – Is anyone in support? None LM - I just wanted to ask the Building Commissioner a question: So, this is a year old right now. With the COVID, how much time do they have for this variance? Building Commissioner - Do you mean when it would expire? LM - Right Building Commissioner - I actually don't recall when I'll have to look into that to get an answer. But it appears that it was stamped January 15th of 2020, so that means that one year would be January 2021 LM – So, if they substantial start with the project, they should be in good shape? Building Commissioner - Definitely GB – I visited the property with Michael, and he explained to me, I wasn't really familiar with it. It looked pretty straightforward to me, and I don't have any questions. GB - I'm good MM – So, maybe we can have another review in January 2021 MM – Motion on ZBA-2019-36 under §181.961 to Continue the Review to January 12, 2021, with the following conditions: 1. Not to be operated as a rental unit 2. Review on January 12, 2021 JB – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Continue the Review on January 12, 2021 ZBA-2020-18 Bertrand Njangtarh 13 PRINCE ST 6:20PM Special Permit under §181.77 to convert part of a single-family dwelling enclosed porch into an in-law apartment located in the Residential A-2 District Map 9 Block 17 Lot 0 At this time petitioner is not connected to the virtual meeting, neither a representative on the petitioner's behalf. LM – There it may be a possibility that the petitioner had some technical difficulties LM – Proposed to have taken this petition out of order if the petitioner joins the meeting later? MM – Motion to take this petition out of order BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to take the petition out of order LM – Alright, 7:40 PM and 13 Prince St petitioner did not join the virtual this evening, so we should give them some additional time to November 10th MM – Motion on ZBA-2020-18 under §181.77 to Continue the Petition to November 10, 2020 JB – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Continue the Petition to November 10, 2020 ZBA-2020-20 Scott Morrisey 612 WILLIAMS RD 6:35PM Renew of a Special Permit under §181.77 to continue the use of the in-law apartment unit located in the Rural Residential District Map S6 Block 19 Lot 0 5 The virtual presentation was given by Scott Morrisey, stating that he has had the in-law apartment since 2005. I completed the paperwork and included drawings this time to convert it back to a normal single-family structure, so if the Boar needs something else, please let me know. I will be happy to do it. LM - I saw that you have the affidavit signed now. Is it still the same family member? SM – Yes, it's my mother-in-law, my wife's mom. Her dad passed away several years ago, but we still have her mom with LM - I take a quick look at the drawing SM - What you have is a kitchen and living room that's one space. It is a bedroom and then a hallway to an entrance door with the hallway's bathroom. The structure joins my wife, and I structure through a laundry room. So, there's a door to the laundry room, and that's another door to our home. Doors don't get a privacy lock, but it's nothing else more than that. LM – So, you will eliminate the kitchen and that it will be SM - At that point, it would become main extraordinary what it would be. I would probably ask that if I could leave the sink there, just because we've moved, the other cabinets, refrigerators, and stuff. LM – Is anyone seeking information on this petition? None LM – Is anyone in support? None LM – Is anyone in opposition? None JB – No questions on this case, it's been good, and we haven't had any complaints or anything like that. I think it's wonderful. MM - It is very nicely done within the specifications, so obviously, I'm good with the re-approval LM – I am good too; I think everything is going well. MM - Motion on ZBA-2020-20 under §181.77 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. Property not to be sold or conveyed as a 2-family 2. Special Permit expires in 5 years and must be renewed prior to the expiration 3. Special Permit will terminate upon the transfer of the property 4. Dwelling is to be owner-occupied 5. Accessory Apartment is to be occupied by a relative of the owner 6. Upon the expiration of the Special Permit, the petitioner will restore the property to single-family use pursuant to the plan attached to the affidavit 7. In all other respects, use of the accessory apartment shall comply with §181.77 of the City of Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Approved the Special Permit with conditions ZBA-2020-22 Amy Schuller 245 CRAWFORD ST 6:50PM Special Permit under §181.313D5 to continue the uses for the business operations on an indoor dog training located in the Industrial District Map 114 R Block 5 Lot 0 The Virtual presentation was given by Eric and Amy Schuler, stating that they are taking over the lease on said location. It was formally the curious canine, and they operated both doggy daycare and boarding. However, Amy has been operating as a trainer for several years now, so we're looking to take over the property specifically for dog training. We are not doing boarding or doggy daycare. LM - They're not going to be operating that business any longer? ES - No, she's retired LM – What is your training entail? Can you give us a brief detail and what your timing would be and days a week? 6 ES - She operates mostly in the evenings and some weekends, daytime classes, where people come in with their dogs for a group training session. Typically, are one hour in duration, so you'll have a group of owners with their dogs coming in, they'll spend the hour training, and then all people leave. If there's a second class, that second class will come in with their dogs, and then they'll leave when they're finished. So, that's for nominally, like between the hours of 6:00 and 8:30 at night weeknights and then between 9:00 AM and usually noon or 1:00 PM on the weekends. LM - How could the groups be? ES - The groups are maximum of 12 dogs. However, they can be as small as four. LM - Is anyone seeking any information in this petition? None LM - Is anyone in support? None LM – Is anyone in opposition? None MM - I had the opportunity to speak to the applicant briefly. I think it's a perfect location, also happy to see the business come to Fitchburg. JB - I was with Michael when we had the pleasure of talking to Amy. The property is perfect for what they want to use it for, so I want to welcome her to Fitchburg as a business person, and thank you for thinking about coming here. GB - Quickly, I was out there and welcomed the business to Fitchburg. I have a quick question on the couple's condition stated on the prior Special Permit; they have stayed that 9 parking spaces were supposed to be lined because they are not lined. Do they need to be lined? ES - I believe that there are parking spaces lined in the front. I don't know when the last time they were lined. They are not super great, but they are lined. GB - Then, the dumpster was stored on the property, supposed to be screened from the public. There's a dumpster laying back. I don't imagine you produce a lot of trash, but that was a condition, and I didn't know if it needed to be addressed. ES - There is a dumpster on-site if we needed, however typically, she might only have a supermarket sized bag of waste at the end of the class BG - I went out to the site; also, I notice there was a section. It looks like there was an outdoor training area, and it looks like a section of the fence was removed. Are you planning on utilizing that space? And if so, are you going to put the fencing back up? ES - That used to be an outdoor enclosure for the daycare. That's going to be one of the entrances for the facility moving forward. It used to be just completely enclosed, so it's going to be the way in owners, and their dogs can do their business on the way in, and then it will get picked up, and no one will ever be out there doing any training. BG - Do you happen to know the square footage of the area that you'll be training the dogs on the inside of the building? ES - I believe it's 3900 square feet. LM – I am looking at the prior conditions, which were no overnight dog care without further relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Are we doing separate conditions? Because it is a different owner taking over the lease JB – It is a whole new business LM – So, on the findings to appear that it does cross-reference this address, but it's not taking over this business. It is a separate business, but we still want to keep the condition there, even we know they have intentions of doing that. LM - Special Permit to expire upon sale or transfer the business LM – Dumpster will be stored on the property screen for the public and empty weekly. Petitioner has indicated that they won be utilizing it. Still, it was never screened in the 1st place. I don't know if we want to pursue that or not. LM - Nine parking spaces on the plan, do you want them the way that they were supposed to be LM - Change the hours of operations, but making sure that this is going to the appropriate 7 LM - Hours of operations, which would be till 9:00 PM Monday to Friday and 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM Saturday and Sunday. The maximum group number of dogs would be 12. Lastly, not to be operated as a nuisance MM - I think this is a great use of the area, and I just wanted to let the applicant know that. If there are any conditions that we put in. If the applicant may need to alter, they can just put an informal request into the board; this is an industrial type area, so I'm not too concerned about its use JB - Everything should be fine with the conditions that you laid on it MM - Motion on ZBA-2020-22 under §181.313D5 to Approved the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. No overnight dog care without further relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals 2. Special Permit will expire upon sale/transfer of the business from owner Amy Schuller 3. A dumpster will be stored on the property, screened from the public, and emptied weekly 4. The 9 parking spaces shown on the plan submitted and dated 5/1/98 with the petition will be lined 5. Hours of Operations 6:00AM – 9:00PM Monday-Friday & 9:00AM – 1:00PM Saturday-Sunday 6. Not to be operated as a nuisance JB – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Approved the Special Permit with conditions ZBA-2020-19 Essex Management & 133 CEDAR ST 7:05PM Realty Property, Inc Special Permit under §181.356 to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential B District Map 22 Lot Block 36 Lot 0 The virtual presentation was given by Max Guerrero (contractor) on behalf of the petitioner, stating that it's a dwelling that's being abandoned for more than two years, and that's why we need to do this petition. We applied for a building permit, which was denied rightfully, so because it is no longer a grandfathering, that was lost. I was explained by the building department that I needed to go to the zoning board to get it reinstated as a 3-family, which was its use originally. LM – Are you looking to reinstate, completely as a 3-family? MG - Yes LM – In the petition, you indicate a possibly converted into a two-family dwelling? MG - Because originally the owner said, if they don't allow it as a 3-units I will do a 2, but I believe that we can still leave it as a 3 because it's a 3-family LM - Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has come before us before? JB – Yes, it has LM - This property has been own by this owner since I believe 2017 MG – Yes, and they started some work, and then it stopped because she had issues with the contractor. Then it went past; I believe the time limitation again, so is why I'm here again. I already have a signed contract with the homeowner, so if I'm granted the reinstatement, I'm going to be reapplying for the permit to get the house up to code completely. So, there's no stopping this time. I do a lot of work in the Worcester County area, Merrimack Valley and Dorchester. If I start I finished, I don't leave open jobs projects. It's going to be a five to six-month project, and it's going to be completely done, I'm eager to begin. JB - Wasn't this on the agenda before, and we turned it down? Because there are no parking spaces on the property and you can't park anywhere around it MG – Yes, back in 2017 JB - But we didn't permit to move forward on it, for when started the work, started it without a permit MM – I believe it was a continuance, and there was no attendance, and then the final, I believe, was an ask for leave to withdraw. MG – But I believe that by right, it would go to its original state 8 JB - That's not true MG – So, what do we do with the house? You tell me to demo it down, turn it into a park, or do what we do with it. You're the boss, and whatever the Board says, what else can we do? We can turn it into a two. JB - You can demo it and put up a nice one family MG - I believe the owner wants to keep it as a two-family BG - I went out, and I viewed the property with Michael, and I don't see any parking on the property. We are talking about 2000 plus square feet for the total lot size. So, it would be a nice location to demolish and put a single-family there, or perhaps entertain the idea of making that a large single-family. I don't see where it is viable for 3-units. GB – More the same, parking is always an issue and in this particular property parking is a challenging issue, so close to the colleges there's no parking on the opposite side of the street and looks there is signage, is permitted parking only on the side of the street where the property is located. So, problematic MM – This has been before us a couple of times, and appreciates people's efforts to redevelop the lodge. I think a lot of us walked around it and took a hard look. Unfortunately, we got multiple challenges as was mentioned, there's no parking allowed on one side of the street, the other side is permitted only houses are right next to each other with almost no setback. If we allow 3-family or even a 2, where will we put four to six cars other than infringed upon minimal parking that the abutters have? As far off-street parking on the left of the house, the telephone poll impedes proper off-street parking. I believe the abutter owns a piece of the other side of the fence, so there are no adequate off-street parking provisions on the left side. On the right side, it's borderline. I think a plan would need to be submitted. You might be able to get one car, so looking at the property, I don't see it as being a three. I don't even see it as being a two. The market is solid. The property's purchase price lends itself to a building lot, even with the demolition, or could rehabilitate it into a single-family home. And to the right side, if an extended foundation will put in, you should be able to get two off-street parking spots for a single-family home possibly. So, it's a challenge, but it's a completely obsolete building. We can't just reintroduce overcrowding and density to that location, and it's too much for a confined space. LM – Read correspondence from a neighbor that had written a letter. I want to read it quickly. This is from Tom cross at 137 to 139 Cedar Street, stating serious answers to the zoning board of appeals. This letter responds to the reinstatement of a vacant, abandoned building as a three-family dwelling located at 133 Cedar Street Residential B District map 22 Block 36. My opposition to such actions is for all reasons, said property Max area to provide parking in an area that is already strange to the limit for parking. Cedar Street is zoned for residential parking that cannot handle its current volume. Some motorists, including college students, regularly violate these restrictions. In the winter, the situation worsens; snow removal for the said lot has always been a major problem. Thus, my living in this area for some time leads me to conclude that said lot cannot be reinstated as any multi-family dwelling safely. LM - I, too, strongly feel that this is a very dense area, and we've already had some issues on the street, and parking is a premium, don't have enough of it. This building certainly looks like it probably was a single-family home at one point in time, and it should be a single-family dwelling. LM – Is anyone here seeking any information in this petition? None LM IS anyone in opposition? None LM - Is anyone in support? None MM - To help the applicant clarify what they can do as a matter of right, Could the Building commissioner speak too, based on the abandonment. Does the applicant have any rights for it's used for a single-family home, or does it need to come before the board because of the parking issue? Building Commissioner – So, Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 section six 4th paragraph allows the city or town to regulate lawfully pre-existing uses and dwellings that have not been used for 24 consecutive months or have been abandoned. So, our bylaw allows existing single-family and two-family dwellings to be reinstated by right, with an inspection from the Building Department plumbing, electrical, and building inspector approval. This is not the case because its last use was a three-family. So, it would still need to come to this board for a special permit to be a single- 9 family dwelling so if the applicant is here. You are amicable to a single-family dwelling. Maybe he can ask to have it be reinstated as a single-family dwelling and get a special permit from you. MM - My thought as I visited the property is that I would look favorably as one board member for a single-family, provided that the right side be modified. A retaining wall slash foundation was put in against the house to park two cars, one behind each other. And they were able to meet the parking space requirements for 18 by 9, and I don't know that they are. But I don't think we as residents want to see the building remain abandoned, but we need to make sure that what we do is right for the neighborhood's future and the abutters. LM – So, would you like me to open it back up to the petitioner and see if they are interested in doing it? MG – So, I can't speak on behalf of the owner, I'm a contractor, so ultimately, that will be the investor's position to make. They can't keep it like that forever, and you haven't abandoned the house there forever. But they can decide to do it as a single-family. The commissioner was clear on the house's right, so I haven't looked into that. I'm going based on all the information that I'm getting, but each city has it all way of doing things, I guess LM – So, this evening, we'll need to vote on this, and then you can speak with your investors, it sounds like, and they're not they want to come back to the Board and ask for an abandoned building to become a single-family home MG - No problem, I was under the assumption that it can go back into its original state of a two-family, because it was a two-family converted into a 3, but because of the two years that went by. I interpret that Massachusetts Law which is that it goes back to its original state, which is a two-family because the original state of the house is a two-family MM – It is last used, not its original use. MG - That's what I need to go to Massachusetts and see all the Regulations that they have, so I'll have to interpret all those MM - The Commissioner did that for us. LM - It looks like that will close in delivering move to a decision this evening, on the three-family, and then it's a petition does want to come back and ask for a single-family that will be significantly different, so I think that we would accept them to come back I can't say that with 100% certainty unless board members want to build on that simple vote right now MM - Well, maybe we continue it till next month if the applicant would like MG - I would ask that we continue that way; the owner can be present with me because something needs to be done there. I don't think the city of Fitchburg wants that to abandon forever, completely. LM - I think you've heard us we don't want it to be abandoned. We would like to see it come to a single-family home. MG - I can't speak for the investor. I don't know how much they invested in this property originally. I don't know if financially it makes any sense. To tend that particular property into one-family, I don't think it would be feasible for any investor. LM – Looking at the deed and it says that they paid $70,000 MG - What does it go for there? LM - I can't do all that work right now for you. However, what I can tell you is, it sounds like they have very little invested in it in the last three years. I think it's feasible that they could make this a single-family home without question, but that's not for us to decide. MG – Exactly LM - Do you want to get a continuance until November so that you can discuss this with the investor? MG - Yes LM - Coming back with the investor to try and convince us otherwise, I don't think it should be spending your time on that MG - I will talk with the owner, I'll continue it, and then they can decide. LM - November should be good. 10 MG - Yes MM – Motion on ZBA-2020-19 under §181.356 to Continue with the Petition to: November 10, 2020 JB – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 5–0 to Continue to November 10, 2020 ZBA-2020-21 Matthew Thibeault 0 PEARL HILL PK 7:20PM Variance under §181.961 for a dimensional frontage require on a new single-family dwelling construction located in the Rural Residential District Map 70R Block 40 Map 1A LM – Recuse herself as she is the listing agent on this property MM – Just for the record and clarification, we're down to a minimum on the Board tonight, so we only have 4 members that can vote, and with a four-member Board, you're going to need all four members to vote in favor of this to carry. Whenever this happens, we always like to offer the applicant the flexibility to either say yes. I want to move ahead tonight, or I would like a continuance until next month when more board members are available. MT - Do you expect more board members available next month? MM - I would have to say yes can't guarantee, but, unusually, we're pretty short. MT - Has anybody had a chance to get out there and do the property? MM - Before I open it up, I want to know if you would like to proceed or not. MT - I wouldn't mind waiting till November till we have more board members. MM - Okay, great, so your case will be on November 10th JB – Motion on ZBA-2020-21 under §181.961 to Continuance with the Petition to November 10, 2020 BG – Motion Seconded Roll Call Vote 4–0 to Continuance to November 10, 2020 4. MISCELLANEOUS 5. ADJOURNMENT 11