Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK ZONING Board of APPEALS Sep 27 2023 8:42 am 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Legislative Building at 700 Main Street. Note: This was a Hybrid meeting, broadcasting and recording by FATV! 1. Call to Order Christine Tree PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL 2. Communications Christine Tree 3. MEMBERS ATTENDANCE: Christine Tree (Chair), Michael McLaughlin (Vice-Chair), Brian Gallagher & James Reynolds 4. MEMBERS ATTENDANCE REMOTELY: Eric Chartrand 5. MEMBERS ABSENTEES: Joseph Byrne (Clerk) 6. ALSO, IN ATTENDANCE: Vincent Pusateri II (City Solicitor) 7. Hearings: Started at 6:10PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2023-08 JoAnne Hamberg 1341 RINDGE RD 6:00PM Review of Special Permit under §181.94 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance on the “ Remand from the Worcester Superior Court Zoning appeal, CA No. 2385CV00600 – A, by consent of all parties, and by Order of the Court, to the Board of Appeals, for consideration of any modifications to the Special Permit decision dated May 22, 2023, in light of the applicant’s proposed modified plan and construction schedule attached to the said Remand. “ pursuant to §181.332 located in the Rural Residential District Map MBL 69R Block 8 Lot 0. Present were JoAnne Hamberg (Petitioner & Property Owner), Atty. Louis Levine (Petitioner’s legal representation), Craig Roy (Engineer) stating, We know this matter has been going on for a while and we'd like to bring it to a conclusion. We've heard loud and clear from neighbors and residents that they want the project to be completed, over the last couple of months we engaged with Dillis & Roy civil engineering firm. They took a look at the project to see what can be done, see “Exhibit A” to eliminate the blasting which has been a concern. I think it's a legitimate concern, and we’d like to get the project done as quickly as possible. Dillis & Roy developed a new plan to increase the elevation of the road, so less work and material had to be removed to accomplish the same thing. So, with the revised plan if we can get going somehow immediately, we can get this completed. The key points of this is there will be no more blasting, there's some hammering to be done. One of the things we spent time doing was, to determine how much hammering had to be done and it turned out that it was less than everybody was guessing over the years. So, we're comfortable and willing to commit, that we can commit can be complete. If we get going, we would be able to finish the incomplete work, which is primarily landscaping for the occupied units, by the end of the year. Then we gave our proposed schedule, which says that the project would be completed by 2025. We also said that we're going to build the recreation building, and it will be completed by September of next year. We submitted a plan to the board that showed drainage, grading, and the things that I executive summarized, but in that plan we showed eleven additional lots. Recently, I have been having conversations with the abutter in the rear, the Christians’ attorney Mr. Lorigan, who is present tonight. We developed a plan to move all the units away from the rear of the Christians’ property, and we eliminated four of our 11-units. So, right now the dynamics of the plan are the same, the drainage doesn't change, and etc. We eliminated all the units in the rear, and it pretty much, the units stop at the throat of the cul-de-sac, and there's nothing in the back. Mr. Lorigan on behalf of the Christians had asked for us to put a conservation easement in the rear of the property, to prohibit any development in the future. So, we're willing to put a permanent restriction, which you could put in as a permanent condition, to say that the area behind the cul-de-sac open area can't be developed except to finish out this plan with the seven units. The material on site would all be removed, as part of the next period of time between now and the end of the year. Drainage has been an issue in the back, there was excavation done and created an unfair situation. The plans haven't changed, but it provides affirmative drainage to take care of any effects on the Christians’ property and to drain it away from their property. There's a pipe that goes into the manhole to the Nashua River and from there to the Atlantic Ocean. CT - To clarify a couple of points for the audience, and because I don't think I heard you say them. By the end of the year, means 12/31/2023. – Atty. Levine - The proposal is not only that the hammering would be done; installation of the utilities, paving, and the road paving would be completed. CT - Will the road will pave? – Atty. Levine - For the current residents. The second-half we can't finish until we get utilities installed. The driveways will be done CT – The pads for the remaining units will they also, be done by that time. – Atty. Levine - Not until the spring. CT - Will there be any hammering required for the installation of the cement pads, on the remaining units. – Atty. Levine – No, anything that involves hammering would be accomplished between now and the end of the year CT - Any crushing to remove the excess material from the site – Atty. Levine - Remains would be used in connection with the remaining construction on those 7-units, one of the advantages for more units is there's a common fee that the folks pay. The more units the smaller fee, 3-units isn’t going to make somebody rich, but we want to get it done and have enough money to get it done. The only change between the full set of plans, and the one sheet plan is a reduction in the number of units, the roadway, drainage, utilities are all the same and they're all depicted in detail in the full set. City Solicitor - A clarifying question, so I understand the only changes to this plan from the original plan that was before the board, and was decided and a special permit issued on. Was also the elevation came up about 6-feet or so into the rear, so that there's a substantial reduction in rock excavation that has to happen. – CR - This plan has a reduction of units, and we reduced the length of the road because we did not need to build a lengthy road. So, it’s allowed us an opportunity to condense the project back further, into the site and allowing some more open space along the back of the property. The entire infrastructure that is within the road, sewer extension, drainage extension that's required; all that remains the same. We're reducing the length of the cul-de-sac, but all of the other items remain the same City Solicitor - This drawing replaces page two – CR – Correct, or C2 Atty. Levine - According to the plan submitted the modified layout hours of construction are limited to Monday through Friday 7:00 AM 5:00 PM, no construction work Saturday, Sundays 2 and holidays. In addition, we do have to get Conservation Commission approval and an Order of Conditions, but they're waiting on what happens here. However, the majority of this work doesn't need Conservation Commission approval; at least the end of the year approval should not be delayed no matter what Atty. Lorigan, representing Mr. and Mrs. Christian with respect to her their property at 71 Bennett Rd. Now, as Counsel Levine has mentioned, it isn't my purview or my intention to step in the bounds of what your decisionmaking is. We certainly would respect whatever this board did, but we wanted to have an opportunity to at least share our input as it impacts my client specifically and ask for this board's consideration with whatever decision that they arrive at. I appreciate the assistance of the City Solicitor as well as the applicant; it was a spirited effort in a short period of time. In effect where we are essentially, my clients have worked with the applicant and it's not something we love but it's something we can live with. My client and her husband had a very difficult time accepting, and they've done it with great reservation, but it's something that they've endorsed. The reason they've endorsed it is, because they are concerned that this project has gone on entirely too long. They have gotten the concessions that they are most concerned, with the language of an affirmative easement, and/or a grant to either the city or a nonprofit for the purposes of putting a non-disturbance conservation restriction on the remainder of the property; that’s shown in the map depicted on the submitted plan. Particularly, the rotary, it's meant essentially to serve both as a vegetation buffer, so that we can have screening, it's to prevent future development, and it's important to us that this be done in the form of an easement. Even if this board imposes a non- disturbed condition, that wouldn't preclude the applicant five or ten years in the future, or any other landowner from coming back and asking for a modification to that condition. Another thing that’s important to us, is the no blasting. In addition to the no blasting, to the extent that the other disruptive activities can be limited to this calendar year, and limited to reasonable construction hours. We do want the rock processing to come to an end by the end of the calendar year, we want it to be done during reasonable business hours. We don't want it to be done on weekends, and the only question I have to Mr. Roy is: A permanent drainage solution engineered and implemented to resolve the water problem that's occurring near the Christian’s property right now. My understanding is that there is a plan for a catch basin to be tied in and that will address that water issue. Mr. Roy – Yes, we have a pipe that extends through the cul-de-sac up to the external property line, which is designed to accept the flow that comes onto the property. Atty. Levine - The approved plans included a catch basin in that area at the end of that pipe, we saw an opportunity to improve the hydraulic situation. So, we're doing a direct open pipe that's a direct inlet, so we don't have to have the storm water come in have a clogging problem with the catch basin drop down and then go into a pipe. We're going to have a straight culvert style pipe inlet on there, and that is part of the part of the plan. Also, if we could be given the week to work through, if this board were to consider the applicant's request. I think it's something we could accomplish within a week, I know the city solicitor has been a great help for us and I appreciate his efforts to this point. CT - I'm going to remind both counsels that, if this board wants to reach a vote. It needs to do so tonight, and that subsequent to the vote we can't modify the vote. We would have to have another meeting to modify the vote, and our next meeting is in the beginning of October. We could entertain a condition that allowed the board to revoke, if there was not an easement agreement executed within a certain period of time, and that might be a way to address that issue between allowing that time to look at language. 3 Atty. Levine - I leave it up to the board, but the two choices are, if the board can meet in a short period of time. If we push the meeting off for the month, then it's going to be fated completely that we're probably not going to have a good chance of getting the work done by the end of the year. Alternatively, you can put a condition in that said enforceable conservation restriction would be imposed, reasonably satisfactory to put a restriction on the land described in the rear outside the cul-de-sac. It's not an abnormal condition that is put in decisions identifying what you expect. I'm sure we have a template conservation restriction, and we're not going to create anything that's not going to do anything but restrict except for open space and conservation purposes. So, I don't have a problem with it barring a meeting next week. City Solicitor – I wanted to understand the rock processing, I thought the hammering was going to produce a byproduct that didn't require processing. Also, my earlier question was, we're elevating the project from zero to six feet. So, we're reducing the amount of rock removal that has to happen, and the only rock work that was happening was the hammering for the lines to accommodate the buildings, and the drainage Atty. Levine – So, what are we hammering is the byproduct that’s going to be processed City Solicitor – So, the hammering that's left – Atty. Levine – Correct, we raised the road as much as we possibly could, in an effort to minimize it. So, the utility lines are the areas on site that we have to do the remaining hammering, we did advance some test holes along so we have a good handle on where the ledge is. City Solicitor – So, the proposed decision that was drafted by counsel is just really removing it out from the hammered by product and then loading then to shipping that away. Engr. Roy - We have big piles of three or four different types of material on site, and all of them are in various forms of process. There's processed rock that's already been through the crusher, some usable for structural fill that we're planning on using. Then there's tailings that came out of the screening process when the loan was screened, big pile of rocks that aren't usable, which it’s going to be trucked off site; no processing. City Solicitor - Just loading onto a truck and removed? Engr. Roy – Yes City Solicitor - There's a pile of unprocessed loam that's to be removed, you're going to screen that? – Engr. Roy - We're going to screen the unprocessed loam, and there's a pile of processed loam already that will be used in the restoration effort. Those are not usable and will be trucked and removed Mrs. McClure of 146 Nijal Ct., on Tuesday I spoke to multiple residents from one end of the complex to the other. The consensus is, we just want the project done. I will want to say that we are happy with what JoAnne has done within the last couple months to take care of the drainage issue, because with the massive rain we have had, we no longer have Lake Woodland Estates. It dries out fast; I will make one comment where they say work from 7 to 5, please make that 8 to 5. Remember we are a 55 and older community, we do not get up at 7:00 in the morning. Most of us would agree with that, we want this done by December of 2024, which was the other consensus we had. Another thing was the recreation center, which was very important to the majority of us. City Councilor Fleming online, I did have an opportunity on Sunday to speak to some of the residents, and the consensus was exactly what Mrs. McClure had mentioned. They just want to get this project done; I want to make everybody happy, the people of Woodland Estates and the surrounding neighbor’s abutters. I think I hear they are asking for two more years of 4 jackhammering, that's where most of the noise was coming from. I wouldn't want this going on in my backyard, and I live in rural residential. I want to know how the developer can sit there and think this is a good idea, when she herself has moved to an area where this would not be allowed. Mr. Melanson of 13 Bennett Rd., my soon to be 92 year old mother lives in the house, she's been listening to this for a long time. I've mixed emotions, but I don't want my mother to be listening to this hammering all day long. So, I am opposed to the extra units, I say stick to your plan that you've already voted on, 4 units. Douglas Caves of 1345 Rindge Rd., I agree with Mr. Melanson, I don't see why it should change the original settlement. I don't think that this project has ever gone right, or the way it was proposed to go from the very beginning. Kathleen Deschamps of 1307 Ridge Rd., I'm a direct abutter and I really do struggle with the last public meeting we had an agreement of four. I don't know how the eleven came about; I know there was some discussions with attorney on the proposal. I do not agree with the proposal, I guess three additional. I want to understand with how many truck quotes for the four types of material that has to be taken out, how many truckloads is that planned. In addition, the time of the work, we had agreed no weekends, no holidays and it was 8:00, so I would like to go back to that agreement. I heard 2025 this would be complete, so I don't understand why there would be a full year. Engr. Roy – I don't have the cubic footage of the piles off the top of my head. There's several 100- yards of material, and it depends on the type of truck you use. I just don't have a good answer for the board tonight I apologize, but it will approximately 1,650 CT - Can you translate those in truckloads – Engr. Roy - Assume 20-cubic yards in a truck, will be an approximately of 80 to 82 loads. Atty. Levine - Hammering has nothing to do with the units, this has to do with drainage in the street, utilities that have to be done anyway. If we do four or seven, that isn't doing double the amount of hammering. I don't have an objection to making it 8 to 5, if the board wants us to be complete with the pads, maybe not all the construction by the end of 2024, its okay Marissa Puputti of 1361 Rindge Rd., I appreciate the compromise, and the both sort of teams working together. My concern is around the timeline, my understanding these are manufactured homes, and they’re built off site and brought in. Why would it take so much longer to bring three extra units, why would this take up until the end of 2025? I think getting this done as quickly as possible sounds it’s the best interest of the residents of Woodland Estates, as well as all of us. Mr. Melanson - Those 82 cubic yards of tailings does not include everything – Engr. Roy – Correct, part of the material that is piled is going to be utilized in the construction of the road JR - There is some ledge that is falling behind some of your homes, and I would ask you to look into it – JH - Okay BG – On the street elevation, I'm wondering how steep that elevation would be – Engr. Roy - It'll be a 6% grade, that's at the worst, which is 6-point, which is 6 feet. So, for every 100-feet we're going up six feet, so not excessively steep. We're trying to get as much out of it, as we can’t challenge to raise in the road anymore, we have to blend in with what was already built. BG - Do you foresee any drainage issues caused by the grade – Engr. Roy - I do not, but we have catch basins that were included in the original plan 5 MM - The utility pole that's at the top of the hill, is that going to be in the center of the rotary – Engr. Roy - Yes MM - Any landscaping in the center of the Rotary – JH – Yes, loamed and seeded MM - The pond in the back, is it going get filled back, going to become a riprap detention pond. Would you explain that whole piece of land, which I assume is going to be part of this conservation restriction. – Engr. Roy – Yes, we will need to fill that area to build the cul-de-sac, but we'll be extending the storm drain upgrading through the cul-de-sac to the point where the fill comes down to the edge to the existing grade, and the low point. Therefore, that area will have a place to drain JH - The other property is higher than ours, so the water runs down onto our property. MM - How much further back is the rest of the project from the pole – JH - Is going to be about 20 feet further back from that pole. MM – I look at the project and see the density of it, and seems the remaining project to be getting spread out quite a bit. Engr. Roy - That's one of the reasons with the reduction in the number of units. We shortened the length of the road that needs to be extended to take the pressure off that area in the back that's currently ponded. MM - The intention and the reason for the storm drain has been designed there, is to take care of the flow that comes off the abutting properties onto the site, and have a way for it to drain – Engr. Roy – Yes MM - Is this something that conservation also requires as well Engr. - Roy - I don't know, it’s in conservation jurisdiction but its falls under the category of good engineering practice. MM – So, where was the grade prior to the project of the pond – Engr. Roy - I don't know we got involved late in the project, but at the end of the day there wouldn't be a pond anymore. It would flow through the pipe MM - Some tenants have commented during our site visit that the anticipated of the recreation house, is going to basically be another manufactured home, is that correct. – JH - Yes MM - Is there a location for that – JH – Yes, in the front of when you first come, in there are the mailboxes and the dumpster, storage container is MM - What is the reason for the grade – Engr. Roy -Trying to minimize rock removal in the interest to get the work completed, with the least amount of noise and nuisance as possible. MM – The cul-de-sac is for fire and safety – Engr. Roy – Correct JR - It has gone on for a long time, definitely looking to close the loop with some degree of confidence and assurance. At this point what's your confidence level that what you've laid out tonight, not going to change. Is there anything you could speak to that what's different about the plan in terms of confidence of to fulfill it tonight, and perhaps in the past – JH - I'm very confident we can make that timeline work, obviously we have less homes, there's a little bit less infrastructure. So, we should be able to complete it without a problem, and I think you'll be happy with the results City Solicitor - Was there any discussion about an operation and maintenance plan for the drainage structures, and can we have some assurance that our DPW will not be eventually inheriting the drainage structures up there CT - The original decision certainly asked for compliance with all necessary permits with DPW and DEP and we have Conservation ongoing. Perhaps Mr. Roy could enlighten us a little bit further on those two issues – Engr. Roy - My firm was not involved in the initial permitting, I should make that clear for everybody in the room. However, a development such as this requires the preparation of a storm water report to document and compliance with the Massachusetts storm water management policy. Which is one of the standards having an operation maintenance plan, so there should be an operation and maintenance plan that's already in existence for the storm water, if it's 6 not attached to this board or the planning board it would most certainly be attached to the order of conditions that was issued by the Conservation Commission. City Solicitor - How will we not eventually 20-years from now, the city inherit the operation of the storm water and sewer collection system there. Atty. Levine - If you want to consider it a private road and you won't be taken as a public way; that's fine with me. Reality is what's going to happen anyway, and we can be in agreement that it'll be maintained as a private road and the owners will be responsible for the drainage, the road. It's a typical condition, and flood we will submit one to the Conservation Commission in connection with their permit. CT - Couple of questions for clarification, first there was a modified plan that was page C2 was submitted today, but it is dated back on 8/16 of 2023. Is there a more correct date for this plan to be referred – Engr. Roy - We held the original date but if you look in the revision line, there's a second revision super small but its 9/13/23. CT – Mr. Reynolds very nicely addressed the issue of timing with Mrs. Hamberg, but I would like to have a way to ensure that if this timeline is granted, if the additional units are granted, that we don't have the petitioner coming back to seek forgiveness for exceeding the timeline. And the timeline is really most important at least to me, as one board member, is the first one that the roadway hammering be completed by the end of the year, and I think our discussion was that installation of the concrete pads by the end of the year could also be accomplished. – JH - Date we suggested was mainly, to grade CT - I know you have initial list, but I thought you had added the latter. – JH - There's no way I can get the concrete in. Atty. Levine - The written list was to remove the stockpiles, hammering to be completed, the processing and removal of the extra material. Which we've specified is just screening and rough grade the road, paving of driveways CT - But you are not able to offer the installation of the pads – Atty. Levine - As JoAnne indicates that would happen at the end. CT - Would the applicant be open to a condition that, no building permit for the installation of the additional units until that first phase is completed. Atty. Levine - No problem, that was our intent Councilor Fleming - I want everybody just to imagine you're 75 years old when this project begins and now you're 92, and the work still is not completing and the developer is asking for two more years. She will be 94 years old and this job is completed, and I would like to have my question answered regarding this happening in her backyard. CT - Before we close the public hearing, I'm going to make a couple of inquiries of petitioner. The unit at the end on the turnabout, for a number of reasons it's not an attractive placement the board has concerns about being too close to the ledge. Is the applicant willing to go down one unit, perhaps unit 22.- JH - I really don't want to give up any more units, we've already cut it in half CT - Is there any way to turn it a different direction – JH - If you want to, but this was the best placement the engineer felt would be the easiest spot to place it, without ledge CT - Unit 27 which is the last unit on the left, can that be turned so that it is facing in the same direction to be consistent with the rest, rather than be horizontal to the road. – JH – Originally, we turned, but to make them a little further from the neighbor property line, and from speaking to the engineer, they actually fit better. 7 MM - All the units on the West side are 16-feet apart, so if unit #27 can be turned so that it's perpendicular to the road. Then if unit #21 can be moved, so that it's consistent with all the other setbacks. – JH – So, there's an issue with the steepness, because of the distance from going to the new grade we slid it over a little, so they'd be a little more space between them and to do so we're going to have to build a wall JR - Motion to propose closing the public hearing MM – Motion Seconded Vote 5 – 0 in favor (EC – by roll-call) JR - I'm not persuaded by the argument to change to move the units, happy to hear what some of the reasoning is behind it if it's purely aesthetics. I'm more driven by the fact that whatever layout drives the minimal infrastructure construction, that's what I want. For example, we looked at unit 22, I'm going to call it the West corner, and the closest to the road if that can be the shortest distance to the underground drains that's great. If it means that the underground drains needs rock blasting to come up into the cul-de-sac they come up the driveway, I'm not in favor, so whatever the shortest distance is what I would be in favor of. Unit 27, I think that the level of effort put into the grade in the design came up with this; I would say I have no opinion about changing it. I think it’s simple enough to change it; however, all of the objective is to drive the closure. I agree that what's already on the table for, I don't think that the additional three changes anything, it's not going to change the infrastructure or necessary to get it done. Whatever conditions about completing it, that's I'm all MM - We made a well thought decision six months ago, and we're being asked to take a look at our well thought decision from six months ago. Everybody in this room has a collective goal, and in order to get that done I'm willing to compromise, and modify my decision and offer the petitioner two more units. CT - The proposal as modified is for three more units than the board had initially allowed, and as far as the modification of unit 22 to accomplish a shorter distance for utilities. I think that is a positive idea that would only benefit all the parties involved, by decreasing the amount of time for rock hammering to take place. We had also been presented with an August 9th, 2023 plan, from Dillis & Roy for completion of the work, which proposed that work be completed by November 22, but start on September 1st. It would be very nice for Mr. Melanson’s mother to be able to have a quiet Thanksgiving, and or at least a quiet Christmas, if not this year then next. September 30 th, date that's proposed for installation of the recreation building. I of course would like to see the residents get that a little sooner, my biggest issue is that once this compromise is made. We are going to be stuck holding the applicant to the timeline into the compromise, because everything we're giving away we're giving away up front and that's on the number of units. I certainly, would want to see the prohibition on the installation of any of the actual manufactured units on the pads until that first phase is completed, and if it is not completed by December 31st. I think that the monetary penalty of $300 a day needs to be imposed, as the expectation if we exceed that timeline again, given past issues. It is always available to the Board to request that it be imposed for a condition that's broken, as completion of the full project by the Thanksgiving date of November 20th, 2024. So, that can be done with this by the holidays, I think that we're going to have to take a few detailed conditions tonight. I apologize but everybody should have the expectation that it's going to take us a little bit to go through conditions, and the main issue we're having is the number of units. 8  CT - I would to take a poll rather than have a motion on the number of units. How many Board Members are willing to consider an additional 3 units? EC - Three are fine, and I'll tell you why. We have a lack of this type of housing in the community, and that one unit it's really not going to affect anyone. I do have some empathy for the applicant, because this thing has gone on for 16-years and she did acquire permits, but other parties did drop some balls here. So, we can't act like she is 100% at fault for moving forward, so for those particular reasons I am in favor JR - I'm okay up to three, if the board thinks it's two; I'm okay with that too BG – Okay with three also, and agreed with Mr. Chartrand CT - I am willing to consider three in the decision, but part of that three is concession on other items. And I think there's some merit to the shorter distance and the utilities having that unit moved, and agreed with Mr. McLaughlin’s previous points about moving up the timeline on the Recreation Center for the residents. CT – Now, we need to talk about conditions at this point in time. I'm going to be looking at the proposal from the petitioner’s counsel, and at the old decision and trying to come up with some proposed conditions that make sense. I would ask any board member that if we discussed anything tonight, and it is escaped my attention to note it down for permanency, please let me know. On the original decision: #1 - No blasting, rock hammering or processing of earth, rock or similar materials may be conducted on site. Proposal is to modify that condition, it should still say No blasting. Then adding: No rock hammering or processing of earth rock or similar materials may be conducted on site, after December 31st, 2023 Condition #2 to remain Condition #3 to be amended to not more than 7 according to plan Condition #4 was hours of construction are limited to Monday through Friday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, no construction work on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. Proposal would be to modify the hours to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Condition #5 and 6 to remain Condition #7 to be modified to also require all construction equipment be moved to the end of Nijal Ct., during construction Condition #8 to remain Condition #9 to be modified, the applicant shall notify any construction vehicle servicing the property not to exceed the weight limit of the Rindge Rd. bridge, or any other bridge in the area. Petitioner shall provide a copy of said notices to the building department within 30 days of the date of the decision, or at such times that the construction vehicles are hired thereafter Condition #10 to be modified as of Dillis & Roy plan dated 8/13/23 and as required by Conservation Commission DPW and DEP Condition #11 to list the work shall be completed by December 31st 2023 1. No blasting or rock crushing may be conducted on site. No rock hammering, and no screening or other processing of earth materials may be conducted on site, after December 31st, 2023 2. No earth removal, as defined in the zoning ordinance, may be conducted on site. 3. Applicant may construct no more than seven additional residential units, according to the August 13, 2023 Dillis & Roy plan as modified on September 13, 2023 – Sheet C2, with Unit 22 on the plan (closest to the turnabout) to be turned to provide the shortest connection distance to utilities. 9 4. Hours of construction are limited to Monday through Friday 8:00AM to 5:00PM; no construction work on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays. 5. The applicant shall employ dust mitigation measures during construction and regrading. 6. Not to be operated as a public nuisance. 7. Site to be kept clean of construction debris and dumpsters to be emptied regularly, and all stored construction equipment be moved to the end of Nijal Ct., during construction. 8. On site toilets to be provided for all construction workers 9. Applicant shall notify drivers of any construction vehicles servicing the property not to exceed the weight limit of the Rindge Rd. bridge or any other bridge in the area, and shall provide a copy of said notices to the Building Department within 30 days of the date of the decision, or at such times that the construction vehicles are hired thereafter 10. Drainage to be diverted from abutter’s property per Dillis & Roy plan dated August 13, 2023 and screening provided, both to be constructed and maintained pursuant to the requirements of the Conservation Commission, DPW and DEP. 11. The following work shall be completed by December 31st, 2023: a) Remove existing stockpiled excess material so long as the same does not constitute earth removal as defined in the City Ordinance, but no loam may be removed from the property. b) All rock hammering on site shall be completed. c) All processing of excess material, which is limited to screening, to be completed. d) Rough grading of the road and installation of utilities and drainage in the road according to said Dillis & Roy plan dated August 13, 2023. e) Paving of the driveways on existing homes. f) Regrading of all home sites, including rough grading on new sites, on the premises g) Any erosion controls required to prevent further erosion of the existing slopes to be placed as necessary, and any degrading ledge shall be evaluated by a design professional and stabilized in accordance with their recommendations. h) Outside perimeter of the project area to be re-graded, loamed, restored and seeded, preferably in the style of the natural rural character of the area prior to construction. i) Operation maintenance plan of the storm water drain system to be filed with the DPW and to be updated at least every three years. j) Applicant shall be subject to a daily fine of $300 if all of the above items are not completed by December 31st, 2023. 12. No building permits for any additional manufactured units to be installed on cement pads shall issue until Condition 11 has been satisfied. 13. All remaining home pads and final connections for laterals and electrical utilities to be installed and the road paved by July 1st , 2024. 14. The Recreation Unit servicing the development residents shall be completed and open for use by the residents by July 1st, 2024. Recreation building to be at least 28 feet by 48 feet and consistent in design with the remaining neighborhood structures. 15. All manufactured home units shall have been installed and the project completed by November 20th, 2024. 16. Special permit to be recorded within 60 days. 17. Permit holder shall maintain all of the ways depicted on all plans that are subject to this special permitting as private roads and not as public ways. Permit holder shall not petition for acceptance of the private roads as public ways by the City. 18. Failure to maintain the integrity of the pavement in the road and infrastructure, water, sewer, storm water and electric systems, as well as plowing shall subject permit holder to a $300 fine per day for violation of conditions 10  19. Permit holder and property owner shall convey and record a conservation easement over the unbuilt land at the northeast perimeter of the premises encircling the turnabout at the end of Nijal Court to a nonprofit entity or an abutter with no financial interest in the premises, which shall at a minimum prohibit development of that area, or improvement except as depicted on said plan. This easement shall contain or be appended to an engineered or surveyed plan depicting the exact area of the easement. 20. This easement in executed form shall be submitted to the Building Department and the Board within 30 days of the date of this decision and shall be recorded at the Registry of Deeds within 10 days thereafter. Violation of this condition shall constitute sufficient grounds for revocation of the Special Permit by the Board 21. Review date - January 9th, 2024 MM- Motion on the affirmative on ZBA-2023-08 to Approve the modification of the Special Permit on the Remand from the Worcester Superior Court Zoning Appeal, with conditions JR – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the modification of the Special Permit with conditions (EC - by roll call) And therefore the Modification to the Special Permit is Approved. 8. MISCELLANEOUS 9. ADJOURNMENT 11