Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING Board of APPEALS 166 Boulder Drive Fitchburg, MA 01420 NOTE: This will be a virtual meeting. Link to the meeting: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/6600326941708837648 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO OBSERVE THE MEETING please register prior to the meeting using this link. PERSONS THAT WISH TO PARTICIPATE PLEASE EMAIL mmata@fitchburgma.gov MEETING MINUTES MARCH 15, 2022 MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 2022 1. Call to Order CT PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL 2. Communications CT 3. ATTENDANCE: Lauren McNamara (Chair), Christine Tree (Vice-Chair), Michael McLaughlin & Brian Gallagher 4. ABSENT: Joseph Byrne (Clerk), Greg Babineau & Gary Kirschke 5. Also, in Attendance: Mike O’Hara (Principal Planner) & Paula Caron (Planning Board Chair) 6. Hearings  Board Members Discussion of proposed comments on Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments (continued from 3/8/2022) CT – We are here to review some zoning amendments proposed to our ordinance that the board wanted an opportunity to comment on. Obviously, due to its interest in the City zoning ordinance and because some of them particularly impact the function of the zoning board. I submitted some comments in lieu of having enough time to submit ZBA comments. We had a review at the last meeting, and the planning board also held a meeting to review the submitted changes. The comments that had been made I attended and submitted when I could from our discussion at the last meeting. I'm going to start by going through those, and I think only a few of the amendments are relevant to us. The first one amends the designations of residential uses by right on Main Street, and the 7th one addresses the ability of the planning board to reduce the density provisions for multifamily developments. I think it related particularly given our discussion at the planning board last night. Right now, our zoning ordinance reads that if here in the downtown business district, residential uses are permitted by right. Notwithstanding the used table provided their location of the first floor of the structure, the downtown business district extends far beyond Main Street down into Pritchard, Elm, etc. The proposal would modify that to say up to three residential units. There was a commentary about including the reference to defining the first floor by visual from Main Street. At the same time, the multifamily development change was to reduce the density requirement or allow the planning board to reduce the density requirement of 2,500 square feet per dwelling unit. On Main Street, located above the first floor, the planning board was allowed to waive the density requirement for multifamily development of nine or more units on Main Street. Mark or Mike, is the intent of this change to allow the planning board to waive that in any district? Ct – So, the section says for multifamily developments of nine or more dwellings and residential units on Main Street. I am going to say that the proposal would allow a waiver for the density requirement for nine or more dwelling units, anywhere, and residential uses on Main Street. At any rate, there seemed to be a discrepancy where the planning board could waive this provision for 9-units, or more or between the four and eight units. It could not waive the density provision, and then three and under were allowed despite any lot area size. During the discussion at the planning board last night on both of these topics, a modified proposal was discussed. Where six units or less on Main Street would be allowed by right, but not residential uses would not be allowed by right above the first floor. Despite the density provision within the remainder of the downtown business district. There would be a creation of either language or zoning map amendment of the area of certain lots. And I believe it's between day and Mechanic, and the building had to have frontage on Main Street so that it wouldn't extend to the remainder of the district. It would permit more permissive as to Main Street, and it would be less permissive as to the remainder of the downtown business district. I believe that the planning board would then have the ability to waive the density requirement if it was more than six units or more than three units at the beginning of this section. LM - I'm thinking of a couple of houses on Main Street towards the mechanic end, which are single-family homes. They don't have a business in; could they convert these single-family dwellings now under this new provision to at least a three-family. CT - They wouldn't be barred from doing so as long as the residential uses were above the first floor because of the density requirement CT – So, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of that zoning amendment change. PC - we did not recommend having anything to do with six units, and the table changed the 181.313 footnotes to three units. The whole premise of the change to the language was that a building on Main Street was putting in four units above on the second floor, and the density provision kicked in. It was never meant for the density provision to apply to the by-right for buildings on Main Street, so that was to be clarified. We did not agree with limiting its three units and no cap, but to clarify that it should affect only existing buildings on Main Street for the by right. So, it's not like if a vacant lot, if I right put one up. Also, I clarified that you would have to have frontage on Main Street, not just as viewed by Main Street. We did recommend if they could make some either type of identifying those lots on Main Street, would be very helpful. Because it's on Main Street, but it's only in the DB district, further down twist West Fitchburg area that direction and goes all the way up to Ashburnham Hill Road; but that changes to like RB. So, it's not to affect those lots on Main Street; it's only the ones in the DB district on the zoning map. CT – So, not necessarily the streets the ones that are identified by district? PC – Yes, it's Main Street in the district, so I was going to section number seven amendment with that clarification. With the multi on the multifamily side, clarifying that's where the density provision is located and adding some language to clarify that the by-right development on Main Street density would not apply too. And again, for existing buildings, we did not recommend limiting it to six or three units, and it was only to those on fronting on Main Street that is by right. Not for all of the lots in the DB district CT – So, given that, I think the essence of that is that there would be no change to footnote 1. This means residential uses would remain permitted by right in the remainder of the district PC - Or they could clarify that it's excluding the by right on Main Street, located at table 181.313, or add another number to that section to clarify that density does not apply to the residential uses by right on Main Street. So, it either put it in paragraph 1, so that paragraph 2 wouldn't apply there because it's by right. So, the question of this by right, it's by right paragraph two, doesn't make sense. MM - What's driving the change in the zoning? CT - I believe this was a building that wanted to redevelop on Main Street where the density provision couldn't be waived, according to which Paula just said, if you could repeat your statement on that? That would probably be best. PC – Yes, it had to do with the special permit application because the density provision and his current form kicked in for four units for a building I'm fronting on Main Street on the second floor, for which it's by right. MM - Do they have the ability to go before planning or zoning to release their request? PC – Yes, but the intent was that it should not apply. It shouldn't be an extra hurdle in that regard. MM - Has everybody thought about parking issues and constraints because the only retail business left on Main Street to Barney Jewelers seems to every time I go in there complain about the fact that there's no parking. In his area of Main Street, because residents are parked there for days on end, and I'm just curious about we all know that Main Street is virtually empty. We haven't been able to revitalize it, so what challenges and hurdles add increased 2 density for residential units? How is that going to be a benefit to the downtown area, and why shouldn't we just look at case by case basis is when they come before us instead of doing spot zoning changing to accommodate developers PC - Parking provisions, in this case, don't even apply because it's exempt from the parking of 60 minutes or less between day and mechanic Street on Main Street. MM – I understand that, but what I'm saying is, if we increase the density of residential units on Main Street, is that going choke the ability to bring businesses to Main Street. PC – Above six units is required to review parking for residential LM – So, nothing under six units has to be reviewed, they can find a parking spot in the garage adjacent or whatever, or they can just park the Main Street CT - But that's exciting LM – But that's existed since the new change this past year PC – Yes, it's a newer provision that also applied because of City Council involvement and that to make that pretty specific. That's why it's between some specific streets; six or fewer residential units are not required to provide off- street parking. Residential developments with frontage on Main Street, between its intersections that day and Mechanic with six or fewer residential units are not required to provide off-street parking that's, and that's table 181.1512 MM - I'm just a little perplexed because I don't understand. We're trying to accommodate a developer and prevent them from quoting and not having to go through an extra step. But I'm looking at the extra step that the city has to go through regarding planning, City Council, and all that to accommodate them. Why they don't apply for relief for their project PC - The multifamily development section is new to the ordinance as of September. On its application, this is what the intention was not for it to apply for the by-right development on Main Street. It didn't apply previously, and it shouldn't apply now. The change was really to look at more of the lots where people are adding units to basements and things like that, and trying to extend this structure. And not to impede the development of the second floor of existing buildings on Main Street. MM - That makes sense; it is a good point. However, I'm still concerned as a resident again if we're further allowing an increase in density on Main Street, and there are no parking regulations for residential on Main Street. What is that going do, if that going harm parking for businesses on Main Street? CT - I don't know that anyone in the city suffers more from parking than myself, as a business on Main Street. We have buildings that will never be able to meet that lot size density requirement. So I would certainly be glad if there were a place for them to park or the ability on the side streets to have a permit, and that would be residents or business owners. I think that would help the downtown parking situation be alleviated from what it is, but there are certainly different feelings on our board about density provisions in certain areas. And I think downtown, particularly Main Street is a special case for redevelopment. Commissioner Barbadoro - A comment on this, I think the change that you're talking about is a lot area requirement CT - Yes Commissioner Barbadoro has a footnote on the table, and Paula pointed that out on the parking table. If you have six or fewer units, you're not required to provide parking, so they are obviously related. If you have a small lot, you may not have enough parking, but the lot spies requirement is at issue here. So, I remember the permit that I sent to the planning board; I sent it to them because under the multifamily development section, if you wanted to have less lot area, then this required a special permit. The point here is that they were not required to have parking regardless; they were just required to have an area. So, I just wanted to bring that up. 3 BG - It's currently 2,500 square feet per unit, correct? CT – Per dwelling units above three units BG - So what would the reduction be? What would square footage be allowable with the reduction that we are discussing? CT - There's no set metrics on that; it would be in the discretion of the planning board to reduce. Again, with Paula's listing of the changes or the recommendation in the planning board last night. I don't think that changes anything regarding units that are three units or less. LM – So, if you were able to put these units on the second floor, and you met the criteria. Are you required to have an actual business on that first unit, or can you leave the space empty? CT - I don't see that requirement in the ordinance that there be a business or commercial use ongoing on the first floor LM – So, you can build as many units on the second floor, and keep the first floor vacant, and not commercial use or any kind of use CT - I don't think it's required in the zoning ordinance, so no LM – So, what are we attracting here? Just more residential units with no intentions of getting a business in there CT – Definitely, attracting more residential units, and if the developer felt cost-wise, it was appropriate where they were able to leave the first floor vacant. They would be able to do that. MO – A good example could be 759-769 Main Street, the old harbor national. They do have plans to release space for commercial use. It's the same as the old G&E building. LM - My question is is it a two-prong requirement, or is it not MO – Isn't a requirement, no. But I don't know if that's a good idea, frankly. If you have a guarantee that you're going to fill the first-floor storefront with some commercial use before you get the go-ahead to renovate the second or third floors. Then the building is going sit, and nothing would happen to it. PC - Populate the first floor driving the residential is to help populate the commercial businesses on that first floor and throughout Main Street LM - I understand the intention, but if the owner now the building has four nice units. And doesn't need to have a business there, and they benefit from the residential units. PC - But it's pre-hab the building it was completely vacant, so now you've got some residences, and hopefully the commercial space which is by right can be filled. They can't do by right on the first floor as residential that would need special permit approvals, or they can do this to help drive the filming of Main Street was a commercial business. By allowing that development of residential density downtown CT – Do they need a special permit through the planning board to allow a residence on the first floor or is it a variance? MO - It will be a special permit in the downtown business district CT - I'm asking if the planning board's the ability to waive that requirement. PC – Yes, special permit MM - Is the city thinking they would want to have residential units on the first floor on Main Street? CT – No, that's not the thought; that's not where these ordinances or changes are headed. MM - I understand, but I'm staying out loud if there is any thought process to continuity on the redevelopment of Main Street. Because the fact that somebody would even entertain that is aghast do it, I don't want to sound 4 negative, but after five or six years of tremendous economic growth in this country. But unfortunately, our Main Street is as destitute as it is, and we haven't been able to have any economic revitalization. Commissioner Barbadoro – Special Permit is required for residential units on the ground floor on Main Street if there was someone who proposed an apartment building perhaps on it. It will be a path for them. MO - Since Special permit, if the planning board doesn't think it's a good idea, they'd rather have commercial there. So, it may be they would goldeneyes on the special permit for residential on the first floor. CT - I agree there should be some board-related control for any residential use on the 1st floor Main Street since we're giving up the possibility of having commercials. So, I'm glad to know it's in there, but I want to bring us back to the matter on hand to make a recommendation or comment on the proposed changes. As I understand now from the planning board, the proposed change would not modify the zoning use of a residential dwelling downtown business district. Right above the second on the 2nd floor and above would allow waiver of the density provision on the Main Street corridor. PC - Not even a waiver, because it's exempt, because it is my right CT - Not changing the ability as it stands to waive the density court requirement for other multifamily developments. MM – Motion to propose and submit a comment to Planning Board and City Council on the two Ordinance amendment pieces to the puzzle regarding the building's frontage on Main Street in the downtown business district. If anybody wants to propose a comment regarding parking issues for residents, it should be addressed. With further residential development by right on downtown on Main Street and that waiver of density requirements in the remainder of the downtown business district have had the possibility of being detrimental to its cousin current residents. It should be examined by boards individually. LM – Motion Seconded Vote 4–0 to the proposal to be submitted to Planning Board and City Council CT – The second issue to address is the change in the resumption of abandoned property. I don't think the first change is contentious, but I wanted to review it. There is a requirement written into the provisions for granting a special permit to resume an abandoned structure or use. We would find that there's been a good faith effort to restore the use, and there have been some extenuating circumstances, such as illness or military service, which had prevented that. The proposal would mean that it's not a required finding. However, the board is still certainly free to consider granting a special permit. Does anybody have an objection to that change? None Does anybody have a comment? None LM - Motion setting for the comment in support of the deletion on that provision from the Zoning Ordinance BG – Motion Seconded Vote 4–0 to set a support comment on the Zoning Ordinance provision deletion CT – Finally, in regards to abandoned property or use. Is a provision proposed for change in the section, which had addressed how the building commissioner is able to grant a building permit to resume the use of an abandoned one- family and above; but it's mostly used for three-family plus. Now, we have a provision that says that, among other things. The structure must meet zoning requirements for the number of off-street parking spaces in section 181.512. The parking spaces may be located on the premises or a dedicated private or public off-street parking facility within 800 feet or a reasonable distance. The proposal was to change "may be located" to "are located." I would interpret that to meet the parking, must be existing. Was a discussion last night about whether or not that was appropriate for making the change? Which would mean that more properties would come before it needs to come before ZBA for a special permit even if they had the number of parking spaces if it were modified to as was suggested last night by Tom. To simply say "section 181.51" and leave it at that. It would allow parking to be approved through a special permit, including a reduction, and then to go to the building commissioner for approval. I thought members would 5 want to comment on a modification that would lead to either more or fewer properties going through the ZBA process for resumption. If Paula could bring any clarification on the last night's discussion from the Planning Board's point of view? LM - Is there an example that brings this to light that you could share with us? Commissioner Barbadoro - Every time someone has a multifamily dwelling, for example, 16 Temple Street, 13-15 Chestnut Street, 147 Daniel Street, and the list goes on. These are buildings that are radioactive, right. There are very passionate people about them, either being redeveloped or not redeveloped. Suppose those people can come up with parking within 800 feet or a reasonable distance from those properties in another lot. They can proceed; they are now an exempted structure because they're all in a zone allowing some residential use. And they could proceed by right, and the ZBA tends to get very up clump over. The possibility of these things proceed by right, so my attention says again about the possibility of making parking. So, it is either to have parking, or they are not allowed to proceed by right. I intended to change the parking requirement because I didn't want to get in the middle of what the ZBA wanted. I only follow the rule, and the rule says someone can renovate a building. That's what they're going to be able to do without the ZBA's involvement. CT - I think because 147 Daniels is a currently pending matter, we should refrain from any further discussion using that as an example. Paula, did you want to comment? PC - The playing board is not as familiar with this particular section if there could be the possibility of parking to allow this provision to occur without getting a special permit approval. It would be 181.51 instead of 512 so that you open up the whole section for what's allowed for parking to try to accomplish. But if that's not the desire of the ZBA, then we change it appropriately to clarify it. MM - the Commissioner brought up several properties that have all been abandoned for long periods and their obsolete buildings. The examples are building that have no land, no parking in most cases. I'm a little concerned about what direction the city wants to go in? Does the city want to recreate the blight and density that didn't work in the past? Or are we trying to look at the first zoning pages to reduce congestion in the streets and neighborhoods? Are we concerned that we're going to go in the opposite direction that has not worked for years? As a board member, I've struggled hard with seeing a lot of these low-end developers buying these abandoned buildings and just want to get them up and running again and without really looking at would space invest for the neighborhoods in the long run. BG - I would like to see legal parking spots for all the required units. I support Michael's point to decrease the density and the overcrowding is the direction we should be going in. LM - A qualification, again, Mark Barbadoro was talking about by right. So, if they can do it by right, and they come to you, they're doing more than 50%. Are we talking about that? Commissioner Barbadoro – Yes LM – So, they are going do more than a more than 50% investment Commissioner Barbadoro - Renovate more than 50% of the building, they have to come up with a list of what they intend to do, and it has to you know, look on its face to be more than a 50% alteration to the building. LM – So, let's talk about four-unit multifamily, but it probably wasn't a legal four-unit. It probably got developed into that, and this is an example of an existing three-family with a basement apartment. Would that be something that you would look at? And say well, by right this basement apartment was added on later, or are you going to give them the right to put it back to the four-family, that it looks like Commissioner Barbadoro – So, what we do is we check with the assessors. Old records the actual paper cards of assessors book buildings, and to the best of our ability trying to figure out if a unit was originally through the building or whether or not it was added; and if so, when? Because that all matters if something preexisting nonconforming, and we go through that calculus if we have suspicions. If something looks were not original for the building or otherwise sort of added, and we don't include it in the figuring. In addition, the accessor's card says three, and there's four, then right off that, we say there's something wrong with this building. And if you want to go back to 6 use it as a four, you will get a special permit from the ZBA. In fact, if you want to even reduce on a nonconforming structure, that is a changeup resisting nonconforming structure. So, we send them to the ZBA for those as well. CT - My interpretation of this change and the requirements for the rehabilitation of the entire facade and more than 50% of the square footage of an existing building. Where is not increasing the use of the existing building or any other non-conformity? If someone can build the required number of spaces without reducing that number. I don't know that we add a huge amount bringing that person before our board if there is any reduction in the requirement of parking spaces. I do think that review by our board adds value to that question. Our board can look not just at the parking but also the effect on the neighborhood density when I look at a lot of the older neighborhoods in town that contain a number of multifamilies. Also, are structures on lots, where the existence of city facilities such as parks or green space. This is appropriate reuse of the property, giving it back to its use. Anytime parking is reduced, I think that into question where it should be back before the ZBA to view. My sense is that I personally not be supportive of this provision because sticking with section 181.512 means parking standards must be met. Again, I think that brings more cases before our board without adding value. At this time, if there's no other discussion, I know the sense of the board may disagree with me. I would ask that you provide a specific comment in support or not in support of the amendment. The amendment again would mean that more cases would come before the ZBA, and to reject the amendment would mean that fewer would come before the board for review. LM - How do they document this? How do they show this? For example, do they have to have an agreement with a neighbor or show the allowed parking in a parking garage or designated street front? How do they prove? Commissioner Barbadoro – I would be looking for some sort of recordable put on the registry deeds. CT – That would mean a recordable easement or lease more than one year in length. LM - But that's not in the provision right now CT – Is not LM - At this point is, a judgment calls us at a point. CT – Yes Commissioner Barbadoro - In five years, I haven't had come up with one, so it's undiscovered. LM – If we're going to vote, can we add language on that nature? CT - We can recommend the change MM - What is this vote for? CT – This would be submitted to the planning department and the City Council in its consideration of approving or denying, or modifying the proposed changes LM - I would propose a modification, and it doesn't sound like Mark would necessarily be opposed to that. I'd like to give some latitude; I think sometimes some of these cases come to us, and we're not sure why they have. So it might lightning the load; we take many cases we have to, but if we can streamline things for people, that's fine, but with some controls. CT - Could you propose a control? LM – What does Mark thinks would be reasonable? I want to be able to work with him on what would be a process on a modification for this. Commissioner Barbadoro – Well, I proposed a modification in the first place, which basically winded up sending you more cases. And I'll use 13-15 chestnut Street; I want to be clear about it. So, 13-15 chestnut Street has an amount of preexisting nonconforming units within the building. They said we have all the parking required for a preexisting nonconforming unit if they come back. They would be able to proceed by right. They have no parking there right now, so the control is the planning board. A control is telling the planning board, don't give them the 7 special permit because it will be detrimental to the neighborhood. If that's not enough control, then I have to send them to you because I don't want to be in a position of granting discretionary permits for people. It's the third rail to have one lone person in the town decide discretionary permitting. It is a bad idea. So, I think it's fine the way it is if you don't mind letting that control fall through the planning board. And then take it up with the planning board if there's a problematic building. MM - We have several of those right now that we're trying to see through. What about in districts where there's no off-street parking required? Somebody can take an obsolete building that says over the years was a single-family. Then they stuffed the unit in the attic and then one in the basement. Will they be able by right rehab that as a three- unit with no off-street parking? Commissioner Barbadoro – If they added units without permits, that's a change of use. That's unlawful, and they have to go back to the lawful use. If it's abandoned, they will only be able to reinstate it as its lawfully abandoned use was. Not as what it was unlawfully abandoned so that would create no more units MM - Does the college district require off-street parking? Commissioner Barbadoro - I think the parking table requires it by use, not district. MM – So, are there any areas in Fitchburg that do not require off-street parking. Commissioner Barbadoro - There are areas in Fitchburg gets do not require off-street parking, but the abandoned provision doesn't reference districts; it references parking, and the parking table is based on the use, not the district. You follow the amount that's in it's in the use, parking or single-family dwelling, etc. CT - We have a separate provision for single and two-family dwelling structures. Again this is what is currently in the ordinance. It states that as long as there's no increase in an existing nonconformity, including dimensions and parking, the building commissioner can approve reuse or resumption of the use if you have an existing two-family dwelling abandoned with no parking. And it's able to fall under that provision, and it's not going to be required to have any parking. MM – Those don't seem to have been a problem with us or a challenge. CT - Could I get a motion to either support or object to the proposed change, and the proposed change again would mean more cases come to the ZBA. MM - Motion in the affirmative to support the amendment LM – Motion Seconded Vote 3–1 to support the amendment CT - 3 to one vote motion passes. And we will submit that comment, and at our next meeting, we can discuss any comment on further changes that we would want to make. CT – Briefly, I want to bring up that Lauren commented that she knew of another property that was split by a zoning district, and one of the changes proposed is to bring the school down on Lower Main Street to be within one zoning district. There was a question as to whether there was the ability to request additional properties split by zoning districts be added; Mike O'Hara, could you comment on that? Unable to do so Commissioner Barbadoro - I saw a lot of split lots in town and finding them all over the place, and I think a general comment maybe we need to re-map again. CT - I would say that if there's the ability and tolerance to look at redrawing the map again, there are many split lots. Split lots cause huge problems for property owners, and I would be very supportive of an amendment that would try to diminish the number of split lots that we have MISCELLANEOUS 8 7. ADJOURNMEN 9