Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK ZONING Board of APPEALS Feb 09 2024 8:48 am 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY NOVEMBER 14, 2023 Zoning Board Meeting will hold a public hearing in the 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), Joseph Byrne (Clerk), Brian Gallagher & James Reynolds 4. 5. Hearings: Started at 6:08PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2023-18 William Gleason 0 AIRPORT RD 6:00PM Review of the Variance under §181.416 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to construct a 24X50 steel building on a 7,959 SF lot not conforming to the side yard setback pursuant to §181.93 located in the Industrial District Map 142 Block 1 Lot A Present was William Gleason (Applicant and property owner) stating, I have a hole dug in the ground for the footings. I had bought the building, paid for the water line, which it’s cost me 11- grand and I don't have a building permit. CT - I'm going to review the conditions with you, and just respond if nothing has changed. The side yard setback was to be no less than 7 1/2 feet on either side – WG – Correct CT - The building would be constructed substantially according to plan from Haley Ward – WG – Yes, hasn’t change CT - You have some conditions from the Planning Board outstanding, but I believe those are related to landscaping. We did have landscaping to be installed by November 14th, but you're going require an extension on that issue – WG - Yes CT - Chain link fence to be of solid color and not bare metal. I assume that's going to be replaced after construction – WG – The fence is down already, so it's just an open lot right now. CT - Property to be kept in a clean and orderly condition with no vehicle or equipment parts or vehicle or construction debris, and to be kept clean during construction – WG - Yes CT - The only issue preventing you from moving forward right now is the building permit – WG - Right CT – Reads a comment from the Conservation Agent, See exhibit “A” WG - I have no clue why I have to file that, if there's no wetlands in the area. An attachment e- mail been sent from Haley Ward to this conservation agent, but I don't know if she has already seem them. CT – Is anyone present or virtual to speak for, on, or against the petition please raise your hand? None CT - I would like to set a review date that's pretty far out for you and what that means, if you need to come back to us before that review you are welcome to make the request to do so, but we're not  going to require you to come back until a date that's much further out. So, the project is nearing completion or completed. – WG – Okay CT - Six months, so June or May MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-18 under 181.416 & 181.93 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to May 14, 2024 amending condition #4 & #8 and all other condition to remain the same: 1. The side yard setback shall be no less than seven and a half feet on either side of the constructed building; no other dimensional variances are granted. 2. The building shall be constructed substantially according to the plan submitted, by Haley Ward dated April 3rd, 2023. 3. All conditions of the April 19th, 2011, Planning Board meeting shall be incorporated as a condition of this decision. 4. Petitioner shall install the landscaping as therein required on the perimeter on or before the review date of May 14th, 2024. 5. The chain link fence to be of solid color and not bare metal. 6. Property to be kept in a clean and orderly condition as viewed from the road, with no vehicle or equipment parts, or vehicle or construction debris. 7. Site to be kept clean during construction. 8. Review Date – May 14, 2024. BG – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to May 14, 2024 ZBA-2021-27 James Pappas / 808 Main St LLC 808 MAIN ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.94 to open and operate a cold storage warehouse as a modification of a preexisting nonconforming use pursuant to §181.313E3 of Fitchburg Zoning Code located in the Downtown Business District Map 29 Block 31 Lot 0 Present was James Pappas (Petitioner and property owner) stating, since my last time here in June, I had met with the Registrar of Deeds (Kathleen Daignault) and we toured the property. She expressed an interest in having her space being moved from the Redevelopment Authority space on Boulder Drive, and that excited me because I thought the Public Storage it's a good safety net, but if I could get the Registry of Deeds that would be a much better use. I reached out to her and the Redevelopment Authority is trying to renegotiate the lease and squelch them down from the 16,000 square feet they have now, and they need roughly half that, and my space is around 12,000 square feet. Unfortunately, their lease isn't up until June of 2025, they might be able to get out of it next year, but it's going to take some time. Therefore, I would like the Board to be able to allow me, to be able to have that safety net as a Public Storage spot, but that's not my first choice at this point. In addition, I've got a bid on the elevator and it's $116 grand to get it fixed, I thought it would be an easy fix, but it's from 1979 so they have to do a complete re-modification. CT - Have you recorded the special permit at the Registry of Deeds? – JP – Recently CT – Special Permit recorded was dated as of November 15, 2022 book 10670 page 46, from a year ago. CT – Is anyone present or virtual to speak on, for or against this petition please raise your hand? None CT - I don't want the special permit to hang out there forever, and so I do want to set a date that you're going to come back to us. – JP - I don't mind that, in my mind a delay doesn't hurt me at all. Especially, if I'm able to land this type of tenant, which it's good for the city of Fitchburg to have 2  City Hall, Registry of Deeds, Post Office, banks next door and the Historical Commission all in this one nice circle; it seems to make more sense. If that doesn't happen, I still have to produce with the Public Storage, which would be of a big help. CT - Did you say June of 2025? – JP - The proposal has to go out earlier than that, so I should know in the next 12 months. CT - Without checking the table of uses, I'm not sure it would require a special permit for an office use on Main Street – JP - I don't think you do. CT - We're going to set a far off date for review, and if you need to come back before that, you're welcome to call and ask to be scheduled on the next meeting that we can schedule you on. We would be looking for the October meeting of next year, and that would allow the applicant to request a one year extension MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2021-27 under 181.94 & 181.313E3 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to October 8th, 2024 amending condition #10 with all other conditions to continue: 1. Signage shall be designed to match the character of the building and be unobtrusive. 2. No additional chain link fencing shall be added to the property. 3. Hours of operation to be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 4. Construction and a certificate of occupancy shall be completed on the second floor and a Review Hearing shall be conducted by the Board prior to a building permit issuing for the first floor, the Board reserves the right to institute additional conditions at that time 5. Interior and exterior surveillance systems shall be installed to alleviate any burden on Police or Fire. 6. Any exterior modifications to the building or landscaping must be approved on Review 7. Dumpster shall be moved to provide adequate access in the passageway for vehicles and parking. 8. Business shall not be operated as a nuisance. 9. Sunset clause: Special Permit to expire/terminate upon the change or transfer of ownership from 808 Main Street, LLC. 10. Review October 8th, 2024. JB – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to October 8th, 2024 ZBA-2022-31 Yael Dario Recio 56 CULLEY ST 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.313 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to open a motor vehicle body and paint shop located in the Neighborhood Business District at Map 33 Block 58 Lot A Present were Ricardo Araujo of Leominster (Friend and petitioner’s translator) and Yael Dario Recio (Applicant), CT - You were last before us in June, and at that point, we had three things to be done, paving, fence, painting and the rear yard to be cleaned of wooden debris. – RA – We have some pictures. See file. CT – A minor site plan approval was submitted to the Planning Board on November 7th, 2023, so you needed the site plan approval, and that hadn't been done yet – RA – Yes, we had the day for November 28th CT - The rear of the building has been cleaned out, but the upper hill behind the building still seemed to contain some debris. I did see the painting, paving, dumpsters and the fence, but there was still some trash on the hill behind. – RA – That’s is coming from the apartments behind. 3 CT - Have you had the inspectors from the building and fire department for the spray booth yet – RA - Not yet CT – No one was present or virtual to speak for, on or against this petition. BG - The dumpster, it looks like is a city dumpster out front. What was the plan for a dumpster on the property? – RA – It is in the plan shows where the dumpster is going be BG - When is it going to be installed? – RA – As soon as we start operating BG - The pavement it seems to be a rough coat, is that the permanent coat? I feel it looks a little rough and unfinished. – RA – Its finish job CT - Given that you have to do the site plan review, and we normally do is whatever planning board conditions input we would enforce them. So, I would suggest that it would be good to modify the conditions to add that particular condition CT - If there was a concern about the quality of the pavement was done, we could have a condition requiring maintenance of the paving. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2022-31 under 181.313 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to May 14, 2024 adding two conditions, amending condition #14 and all others to remain: 1. Property is to be used for motor vehicle body repair and painting only with two bays, including on the spray booth; no non-body auto repairs, sales, or other services. 2. Professional signage only – no temporary vinyl banners. 3. Not to be operated as a public or private nuisance. 4. No offensive fumes or odors, and no outside storage of vehicle parts. 5. The dumpster is to be located within the fenced area. 6. Any unregistered cars to remain on property no longer than two months. 7. Parking according to plan dated January 10, 2022, and submitted with this application. 8. Hours of operation 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and Saturday 8:00 AM TO 4:00 PM. 9. Inspections from the Building and Fire departments to be completed for the spray booth prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 10. The Building’s exterior is to be painted in a good and workmanlike fashion by October 31, 2023 – Complete. 11. The existing fence is to be replaced and painted in uniformity with the color scheme of the building – Complete. 12. Petitioner shall pave the parking area with asphalt by November 14, 2023 – Complete. 13. Sunset Clause – Special Permit to expire/terminate upon the change or transfer of ownership of the business from Yael Dario Recio. 14. Review – May 14, 2024. 15. Any conditions of site plan approval issued by the Planning Board shall be incorporated as a condition of this Special Permit. 16. The pavement shall be maintained in good condition and repaired or replaced as needed. BG – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to January 14, 2024 4 ZBA-23-21 Jose Francisco-Bueno 1033 MAIN ST 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.313D12 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to continue the use on the property as an Auto Repair Shop pursuant to §181.94 located in Downtown Business District Map 18 Block 90 Lot 0 Present were Jose Francisco-Bueno (Applicant and property owner) and Katherine Mejia (Sister) stating: We weren't able to do most of the stuff that we wanted outside, due to all the construction on the road. Parking lot, we couldn't fill in the cracks and paint it. The fence I have a contract to get both fences put up, but on one side, it had to get dug up so until the construction is gone we can’t move forward. We painted the building, signs are up, but the bottom is starting to get fixed. We did a lot of updates on the lights and the inside, but until the road’s 100% complete, I couldn't get any further. CT - Professional signage, I didn't see any. Are still waiting on the final sign to be installed or is that done? – JF- That's the one, I am planning to paint the pole to match the building, and then the bottom yellow, which is going to get done with the parking lot. CT - Some of these conditions are going to occur when you are under operation. Remaining conditions are the installation of the fence on the right hand side of the property to prevent parking on the sidewalk. BG - When do you hope to become fully operational in that location? – FB - As soon as possible. MM – We should move this review to May 14th, 2024 to know how the business operation is going. JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-21 under §181.313D12 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to May 14th, 2024 with conditions: 1. No Handmade Sign/banners – Professional Signage only 2. No Vehicles for sale, no unregistered vehicles on the premises, and no storage of vehicles other than active customers and employees 3. Auto repairs to be performed within the building only 4. No outside storage or display of tires or vehicle parts, and property shall be kept clear of trash and debris 5. Dumpster shall be positioned on the right rear of the property 6. In and out directional markers shall be painted on the pavement to indicate traffic movement in a one way direction 7. Petitioner shall replace the vinyl fence on the left of the property 8. Petitioner shall remove the pole with rims and chains on it, and install a fence on the right hand side of the property up to the end of the parking spaces to prevent parking on the sidewalk 9. Petitioner shall repair or replace the existing sign pole and base servicing the premises 10. Building to be painted in neutral color coordinated with the fencing 11. All work to be completed by May 2024 review meeting 12. Not to be operated as public or private nuisance 13. Hours of operation: Monday – Friday 8:00AM to 5:00PM – Saturday 8:00AM to 1:00PM 14. Sunset Clause – Special Permit shall terminate/expire upon the sale/transfer of property of change operation from Jose Francisco-Bueno/Midnight Auto Repair, Inc 15. Review – May 14, 2024 MM – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a continuance on the Review to May 14, 2024 5 ZBA-2023-02 Maitland Ishmael 479 Water ST 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.3332 of the City of Fitchburg Code to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building from one nonconforming use to another less detrimental nonconforming use as a duplex units pursuant to §181.313, located in the Neighborhood Business District at Map 96 Block 5 Lot 0 Present was Maitland Ishmael (Petitioner & Property owner) stating, we have installed new roof; windows siding and framing are completed. Also, we installed a mini split for the AC for the units and the basement, about the water concerning to the Board coming into the basement. Engineer checked into that and stated that the issue was because it was abandoned and the nature of the foundation being too low. Currently, looking for the right estimate cost on the spray foam insulation to comply with the new energy code, which will be between 15 and 18 thousand. In addition, some obstacles I found, that I have to do the water board to do to two lines of water for each unit; which it’s going to be and additional cost $25,000. My question to the Board is why I'm responsible to do all that. – MM - It's not our jurisdiction, unfortunately, but the Water Department can answer those questions. CT – Comments from the Building Department, it says that they have done the rough inspections for plumbing and electrical. CT - So we had a condition to take care of any water issue in the basement due to water infiltration soaking in the basement, not about the water lines being replaced or going in. Along with other conditions: We had three phase construction: First phase was the safety inspection and we had concerns about the structural support, the floors being level, so what had happened with the safety inspection? – MI - I have passed framing inspection, we had to put almost 14-Lally columns at the basement and jack everything up CT - Phase two, replacement of the roof, doors, windows, siding and exterior trim. We needed an engineered plan with the parking showing the snow storage, which needed to be added to the plan and then submitted to the building department. - MI - We have three parking spots at the front and some space at the back where we could store the snow, but I will leave that to whoever buys or lives on the property. CT - The concern is that the three spaces take up the entire front of your property, and the request is to mark on the plan where the snow is going to go. I'm going to suggest that you might have space in the back – MI - Okay CT - We did note there wasn't any change to the granite wall in the back. MI - No, we added more stones for support, after the engineer came and looked at, he said if we have to dig to do new walls, it's going to shake the foundation of the abutters building. On which I could be sued, and it could cause me some damage. Therefore, he advised me that I should never think about that. CT - Did the engineer give a written report? Or some documentation from the engineer to have a professional opinion on that – MI – No, engineers are not cheap either and I would have to pay for it. CT - And there's going to be a little bit of landscaping between the house and the two parking spaces, over the small strip of dirt. – MI - Already did it and made it look nice CT - A couple other things, we had requested that the siding be replaced, but it's been painted. One of the issues when it gets painted instead of replaced is that the vinyl kind of moves as you can see, you have these cracks that show. – MI - Those sidings were not painted, they were replaced 6 and painted because I like that color, and I couldn’t find green. So, I replaced with white and then I sprayed everything. CT - Can you do some touch-up; I think if you took a paintbrush to all of the seams. – MI - Yes, definitely, before I sell it will do that. CT - I'm going to note that the new air handling unit you had stalled in the back; was there a reason that you didn't do the concrete block support installation? – MI - The licensed contractor said he didn’t put the concrete, because if it rains going stop water and it's going go to the basement. Just have some comments. You know. MM - Was there a permit specific for the roof? Was the roof inspected by the building department? – MI - It's a new roof MM - The only thing that we have struggled with is the parking. What I'm concerned about is this is going to be sold, so the new owner parks in the back on the share driveway. – CT – I don't think that's a parking spot allowed on the parking plan MM - What's to prevent people from doing it? - CT - So, a suggestion would be perhaps fencing in the small line of the rear yard, not trying to add cost MM – But it’s still a concern because a vinyl fence could be taken down; there's additional parking for us. We tried to rectify the problem, but now we're causing an issue with the abutter because that's a right of way and now we could have an absentee landlord and it becomes the parking mayhem. – CT - We can require as a continuing condition that the fence be maintained on the property, because this was a special permit property and therefore conditions continue even after construction is finished and property being sold to a new owner. Felix Zemel, Acting Building Commissioner - I wanted to give a little bit of insight, ideas, and thoughts maybe for the Board to consider about snow collection area. I totally understand the need for a snow collection area, especially if you've got a multifamily in a densely populated area, and that should not be necessarily passed off to the future owners to figure out. I also heard Members say that likely is going to be in the back, so if we're going to be asking them to put up a 4-foot fence. Practically speaking, a 4-foot fence is going to block access to that snow collection area; unless they have a snow blower with a good throw to get over that fence. I would wonder if the board might be interested in some sort of berm for the space, either granite curbing concrete berm or a landscape berm. Something to create a physical barrier that's at a different elevation so cars can't drive over it, but it also provides access for snow blower to be able to throw the snow into the back area without impeding egress to the area. I also agree with the board that we need something from the engineer about the wall, because I haven't seen a problem that an engineer can't fix. It’s a question about technical feasibility and cost. I've seen quite a fair share of issues and engineers always find a solution. CT – First, I would like to take a vote from the board members, whether they're in favor of adding the condition to install a concrete berm or other solid barrier in the rear yard. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Gallagher & Mr. Byrne - in favor CT – A vote from the board members, whether they’re in favor to install a four foot black chain link fence which would still allow an owner to snowblow. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. McLaughlin & Mr. Byrne - in favor MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-02 under §181.3332 & §181.313 to Grant a Continuance to January 9, 2024, adding new conditions and all previous conditions to remain the same: 1. Property to be operated as a two-family with no more than two bedrooms per unit. 7 2. Property shall be upgraded to current applicable Building Code as required under said Code. 3. All work shall be completed in a good and workmanlike fashion and properly permitted, inspected and certified to be complete. 4. Construction shall proceed in three Phases as follows, with Petitioner being required to complete each phase to the satisfaction of the Building Department before proceeding to the next phase. 5. Phase One: a. A safety inspection to be conducted by the Building Department. b. Petitioner to comply with the requirements of the Building Department after inspection for safety. c. Petitioner shall ensure all floors are level, installing jacks, support beams or any other building element necessary to bring the floors to level. d. Petitioner to install water mitigation measures in the basement mitigating any air quality issues arising from the moisture in the basement, with sufficient and legal connection to the stormwater system or other legal redirection of water entering or arising from the basement. 6. Phase Two a. Petitioner shall replace the roof, doors and windows, siding, and exterior trim. b. A modified engineered plan indicating a location for snow storage in the rear of the property shall be submitted to the Building Department with a copy to the Board. c. Petitioner may proceed on any interior construction or modifications, but completion of interior work is not required for completion of Phase Two. 7. Phase Three a. Petitioner shall repair the granite wall in the rear of the property so that it is both safe and stable without danger of collapse onto the property. b. Petitioner shall install landscaping in the front of the building, including plants, shrubs or trees usually installed in residential uses, between the structure and the parking spaces. c. Petitioner shall install green space for residential use in the rear yard. 8. The number of required parking spaces shall be reduced to three spaces as designated on the plan dated October 5th, 2018, which shall be striped. 9. Snow removed from the parking area shall be stored at the rear of the property as designated on the modified engineered plan or removed from the lot. 10. Property to be kept clean of debris and overgrowth during construction and dumpsters regularly emptied. 11. Review Date of January 9, 2024. (Modified November 14, 2023) 12. Applicant shall submit a $5,000.00 deposit to be held in a special account by the Treasurer and may be disbursed and applied, under the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as compensation for any qualified consultant employed by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding this project pursuant to M.G.L. c. 44 §53G. Any funds remaining shall be returned to the Petitioner or his written assignee upon satisfactory completion of the project in accordance with this Special Permit and to the City's general fund forfeit. 13. If this Project is not satisfactorily completed within the 18 months of the date the Special Permit decision was filed with the City Clerk, the forfeited funds shall be allocated to the Building Department’s demolition fund. 14. Petitioner to install a chain-link fence at least four feet in height, with posts sunk in concrete into the ground, along the side of the rear yard between the rear yard and the driveway/right of way. (Added November 14, 2023) 8  15. This special permit shall expire if ownership is transferred from the permitholder, Maitland Ishmael and/or Ishmael Cooperation, LLC, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. (Added November 14, 2023) BG – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to January 9, 2024 ZBA-2023-10 Lewis Colten 21 UNION ST 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.94 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to reinstate and change the use of a vacant/abandoned building from a church to a single-family dwelling pursuant to §181.333 located in the Residential C District Map 44 Block 141 Lot 0 CT – Calling the case of 21 Union Street, no one was present or remotely on this matter. CT - I do see there's some work being done on the property. CT – We have not received any other city department’s comments on this property. CT - On the plus side, there is a curb cut that it's been applied for. Not issued yet, and that is where they were taking down the left side of the building to create parking. CT - The applicant is not here, and we did not receive any communication from the petitioner. JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-10 under §181.94 & §181.333 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to December 12, 2023 MM – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to December 12, 2023 ZBA-23-22 IVJ Group, LLC 87, 89 & 91 RIVER ST 7:00PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.333 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to reinstate a vacant/abandoned nonconforming use buildings and change the nonconforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose from manufacturing to a multifamily development pursuant to §181.336, §181.74 & §181.94 located in the Adaptive Industrial District Map Block and Lot 28/26/B, 28/26/A & 28/26/0 Present was Anthony Cleaves of Haley Ward, Design Engineers for the project on behalf of the IVJ Group, and virtually Mr. Mazzaferro as well, stating: There are three buildings on the property, and the building that fronts on River Street is currently about 10-feet from the front property line; the front yard setback on that zone is 20-feet and that’s why the structure is nonconforming. As part of the project, we're going to be restoring these old historic mills building, but this building in particular is not going to be expanded. It'll be windows, updating the brick facade, some entryways. The other two buildings which are conforming, we'll have a new addition between the two of them. Which is the main reason that we're before the board for the special permit. Since the last hearing in September, we've been going through hearings with the Conservation Commission. This site is within the 200 feet for the riparian zone from the North Nashua River, and within the hundred-year floodplain, we've closed out the hearing process with Conservation and they voted to issue an Order of Conditions for that. We've also had a meeting with the Planning Board, and had some good discussions with a follow up from a site visit. They'd like to see the updated plans. The most recent visit was from the fire department. Their main comments were on the access way between our third building adjacent to Kelly Wood Products, which is a narrow strip there of about a 12-foot wide area, opened up to a 14-foot wide area for vehicular traffic, 9 which meets the Fitchburg zoning requirements for traffic, but they also asked if we could make that a little wider and so we're trying to be cognizant of adding impervious surface and trying to maintain some landscaping. We considered reinforced turf, so basically adding a lawn area that's reinforced with some plastic cells and some stable material that you can drive on it. From Planning Board, comments were ensuring the EV Ready Parking Spaces to meet the new Stretch Energy code, and there'll be 15 EV Ready spaces noted on the plan where those are going to be located. Between two of the buildings is a courtyard area for residents to utilize, we're going to have a fence in at the end to better secure that for the residents. Another comment was the existing driveway from Nockege Street. It’s utilized now for Kelly Wood Products, there's some overgrowth and unsightly trees, so they asked to remove some of that overgrowth and vegetation to open that area up. Also, in that same area to help direct flow of traffic, we're going to put a directional sign to make people know, if you go left that's Kelly Wood Products, if you go right that's the Iver Johnson residential area. There's a middle staircase, used to be an old fire escape, and it’s in need of some repair, so we're adding a note on the plan to clean and repaint or to be removed. The existing sidewalk on Nockege Street seems to be in in some disrepair. One of the conditions they talked about is to have the sidewalk be removed and replaced. Along Nockege Street is also a chain link fence with a lot of overgrowth, so that chain link fence is going to be replace with a black metal fence as on River Street to match the consistency. They requested some low level planting along the River Street building, Fire Department preferred not to have any tall vegetation because it could obstruct access to windows in an emergency. Our next Planning Board meeting is November 28th. CT – After the first building, the parking area that has an exit onto the side street, is that going to remain an open exit. – AC – Yes. CT - And the parking lot will exit to that access drive, right there. – AC – Yes CT - Was there an ability to collapse the easement that runs through the courtyard, the common right of way - AC - That easement exists for the benefit of the buildings on our property at one time there were three lots. So, being all one property owner now, that would be able to cleaned up and because we also have requested easements from Kelly Wood Products. So, there's going to be some updated easements that are going to take place for this. CT - You have this historic mills preservation credit that you're working with. Yeah. – AC – Yes, so part of the funding project is going for the historic preservation CT - The facade of the front building on River Street will be preserved, for instance – AC – Yes, it's essentially we're at their mercy on what they can allow us to do. CT – Comments from the Board of Health and Planning Board please see exhibit “A” CT - Is there any person present who would like to make a comment on this petition on for or against? None CT - Is there any person virtually who would like to make a comment on this petition on, for or against? Please raise your hand. None CT - I'm going to ask if you have an adequate number of parking spaces to serve the number of units. – AC - We have 65-units in total, 50-one bedroom and 15 two-bedrooms. Requiring 73- parking spaces and we're providing 77. CT – Could you speak on the regular special permit criteria under 181.942 – AC - We're providing, additional housing which it’s a need for the City of Fitchburg. We've designed traffic flows in accordance with the Fitchburg zoning, and maintaining the accesses are there, accommodate emergency vehicles as well. We're replacing water mains, sewer line, so is adequate service for the municipality and we're operating our own services within the property. 10 CT - Electrical utilities will be buried, or overhead. – AC – It’s going to be buried from our transformer to the building, and it would be overhead from Nockege Street to the transformer and then over the ground from there. So, it's in harmony with the character of the neighborhood. CT – Any projection of the increased property tax, after the redevelopment? Can you approximate the investment that will be made in this property? - Mr. Mazzaferro - I live in Long Island, I am one of the owners. I can answer both of your questions, the tax base right now is approximately $15,000 a year, and we estimate it could run through as high as $75,000 to $80,000 a year once we are completed. The approximate budget for investment is $25 million. CT - How are you securing the funding for this project at this point, or are you still working on it? – Mr. Mazzaferro - We are working on it, we have been successful in my opinion of getting grants and credits. Such, historical tax credits, brownfield credits, as well as a number of grants from Mass Development and others. We've been gathering these things and trying to essentially create our best equity position before we approach the lenders, so we are planning to complete the project financing with a lending package. Interest rates are a little difficult right now, but we don't need to chase financing at this point. CT - Would you begin construction within 12-months? Mr. Mazzaferro - I believe that's very possible JB - I think this should be allowed, and I like the idea. JR - Supportive and ready to move forward BG - In favor of this project and looking forward to it being redeveloped MM - This project is going go before multiple boards, Planning is going take care of site plan. CT - I look forward to the further improvement of the River Street corridor. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-22 under §181.336 to Approve the Reinstatement of the nonconforming vacant/abandoned structures. JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Approve the Reinstatement A second motion was made for: MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-22 under §181.333 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. All conditions from the Planning Board Special Permit and Site Plan, if approved, are incorporated as a condition of the Special Permit. 2. The original windows for the building at 91 River Street which face River Street shall be retained in their original historical character and condition. 3. Petitioner shall replace the chain link fence on Nockege Street with black metal fencing. 4. Petitioner shall reconstruct the sidewalk on Nockege Street abutting the premises including resetting the granite curbing. 5. Any right of way used by the occupants of the building including areas not subject to the current right of way shall obtain an updated easement agreement to be provided to the city for review before recording and delivery. 6. Review – November 2024 meeting. BG – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions, Special Permit unanimously approved. 11 ZBA-23-31 Lauren Nario 285 RIVER ST 7:45PM Special Permit under §181.313D11&12 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to continue the use of an auto sale and to add auto body services pursuant to §181.94 located in the Neighborhood Business District Map 39 Block 51 Lot 0 Present were Lauren Nario (Applicant) and James Pappas (Property Owner) CT - Given that our esteemed member, Mr. Reynolds had to leave, and we have a conflict of interest with another board member, we are not going to have a quorum to hear the matter tonight. Which is unfortunate to discover at 8:38 PM as you've waited here. CT – We would have to move and continue this matter to Thursday, and we'll be able to have our discussion on Thursday. We'll schedule you first on the agenda. I would agree this issue was not known until now, so it would fall under the exception to the 48-hour rule, but we would need to amend the notice with the City Clerk as soon as possible tomorrow morning. CT - I am going to call this matter ZBA-23-31 Lauren Nario, 285 River St. I am going to open the public hearing. Seeing the petitioners present. CT – Is any member of the public has a comment to offer on, for or against this petition? None CT - Announce Mr. Gallagher had a conflict of interest, due to a family relationship with the applicant and this was not a prohibited conflict of interest, but the appearance of a conflict of interest, has led to him recusing himself. Given his recusal, I would ask for a motion to continue the hearing to Thursday, November 16th at 6:00 PM. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-31 under §181.313D11&12 & §181.94 to Continue the Hearing Thursday November 16, 2023 at 6:00 PM GB – Motion Seconded Voted 3–0 to Continue the Hearing November 16, 2023 ZBA-23-27 Mark Brideau 0 COBBLER DR 7:30PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.313E5 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to open a contractor’s yard and erect a 4000SF steel building to be used for storage pursuant to §181.94 located in the Industrial District Map 114R Block 10 Lot 1B Present was Chris Anderson from Hannigan Engineering for the project: So it's the intent of the applicant to continue to utilize an existing contractors yard. Part of the overall project is the intent to construct a 4000 square foot structure with loading doors, and a small office area in order to facilitate the continued use. We're currently going before the Planning Board, and they've continued us until the Zoning board has had their decision made. There are no wetlands on the property, so we're not subject to any of the Conservation restrictions upon that the proposed building, which will be situated closer to the northern portion of the property line. Access would be provided off an existing paved opening at the northern portion of the property, and this will extend into a paved parking area for the employees of the facility, and this will also lead into a broad open regrind pavement storage area as is currently stands now. As part of the overall project, we will be also providing a new curb opening along the side of the portion of the property, primarily for traffic flow purposes. The existing driveway opening empties out into a very convoluted traffic pattern, so in order to improve the safety of that intersection. We're proposing to relocate the exit point of the vehicles further south in order to have proper sight line distances and ability to make the appropriate turning maneuvers. 12 The property is located exclusively within an industrial zone, we have abutting industrial uses, including a recycling facility, a construction company building, and several other various uses including the airport itself. So, this is an exclusively heavily industrial zone, and it’s also located in a dead end road. So, this is a well suited location for this continued use within the city. CT – Is Cobbler Drive a private way or a public way? – CA - It's a public way. CT - Is this going to be utilized by the owner of Brideau Oil. – CA – Brideau Oil is the landowner, and they currently lease out the property to a pipe storage facility. Currently, utilized as a pipe facility stores pipe for use in various construction projects throughout the area. CT - Is the proposal that all the storage would be contained inside the structure or would it be outside – CA - Outside and distributed throughout the property, similar to what it is there now. CT - Will this be along the concept of a building with storage that's sublet to different contractors for the purpose of your particular businesses? – CA - At this point in time, it's only going to be the single occupant user, so the current contractor pipe company, will be utilizing this building as part of their day-to-day operations CT - Can you provide a general description of the equipment and trucks that are going to be entering and exiting? – CA – So, the raw materials that typically come to the site are standard tractor trailer vehicles, which all driveways and entry points have been designed to accommodate. The materials are sometimes processed on site, cut for lack of a better term, before being removed to another project site. Typically, done by flatbeds and other kinds of vehicles or a tractor trailer. CT - Is there any setback relief? Or are you compliance with all setbacks? – CA - We're in compliance with all setbacks, and we're providing an additional landscape buffer along Cobbler Drive. CT – How about the fence? CA - Fence will remain as a chain link fence, and any damaged fence components will be replaced. CT - How far is the steel building from the front property line? How close is it to Cobbler Dr.? – CA - It's approximately 68 feet, and the industrial zone only requires 20 feet. CT – Employees’ parking is going to be in front of the building. – CA - It'll be in front of the building between Cobbler Drive and the building based on usage, per zoning we need four spaces, we're providing five. CT - Traffic pattern, you said you're moving the exit further south, that's closer to the turnaround – CA - Yes. CT - Is it going to be one entrance in and out, or are you still going to utilize the other entrance in a circular pattern –CA - The existing entrance will still continue to be used as an entry point only, and we are providing signage to restrict vehicular movement through that area. It's been designed to accommodate the tractor trailer vehicle to make the turning maneuvers, to get into it without obstructing parking capacity. The exit point is designed to accommodate both entry and exit, so if in the eventuality a vehicle doesn't want to make that turn, they can continue down Cobbler Drive and enter into the property that way as well. CT - What's going to be the signage? – CA - There won't be any freestanding pylon signings, there might be a small just placard on the side of the building CT - And this is not intended to be sold; it's going to continue to be owned and operated by the current owner, Brideau Oil – CA – Yes, or the realty group CT - We have Mark Brideau as the applicant; should there be an entity associated with that – CA - It should be BOC Fitchburg Trust as the applicants. CT - We have no attendees online or in person to speak on, for or against this petition. CT - We have a comment from the Planning Department stating, the application for site plan approval is before the Planning Board. The public hearing was opened on October 24th and 13  continued to November 28th. The Planning Board is awaiting our decision before they take any action. BG - I feel that constructing a building of that nature is in keeping with the area, and to my knowledge that is the only lot that doesn't have a building. Adding a new building, it would improve the area, so I am in favor of it. CT – Could you respond to the special criteria under section 181.942. – CA - We're currently looking to redevelop an underutilized property for providing the new building itself, because of the location in a very exclusively industrial portion of the city, it allows us to provide a service to other residents in the city by allowing contractors to be able to come and store their materials in the city. Due to the nature of this area, it's becoming very difficult to find open pieces of industrial land that are very well suited for this kind of use. We're keeping this out of the residential districts and providing a general improvement to the tax base, by bringing additional business into the area. CT - I'm going note to the applicant that we are a four member board here tonight. That means that you need the unanimous consent from this board in order for allowance. We do offer the opportunity to go to the next meeting where we might have a five member board. Do you wish to continue tonight? – CA - I want to continue with tonight. CT - The use is appropriate for the district. MM - It's not going to change other than a building, and the property owner has demonstrated with his other business that it's well kept its landscaping. I'm in favor BG – Agree, I am in favor CT - I am also in favor of the allowance of this petition. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-27 under §181.313E5 & §181.94 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. Project to be completed within 12 months of the date the decision is filed with the City Clerk. 2. All Planning Board conditions of the Site Plan, if approved, to be incorporated as a condition of this Special Permit. 3. The existing chain link fence bordering Cobbler Drive shall be replaced and the new chain link fence kept in good repair. 4. Construction is in conformity with the plan submitted and dated September 5th, 2023. 5. Landscaping to be installed along the chain link fence bordering Cobbler Drive. 6. Exterior storage to be located near to the rear property line. 7. Site to be keep clean and free of construction debris during construction. 8. Review - July 9th, 2024. BG – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions ZBA-23-33 Henry Genao 118-120 INTERVALE RD 8:00PM Special Permit under §181.336 to reinstate and change the use on a vacant/abandoned non-conforming 3-family structure to a less detrimental non-conforming use as a two-family dwelling after a fire pursuant to §181.94 located in the Neighborhood Business District Map 124 Block 1 Lot 0 14 Present were Henry Genao of Leominster (Applicant) and Antonio Medina or Lawrence (Property Owner) stating, we bought this property as a three-family, and it has side burned. So, instead of doing a three-family again, we're going to do a two-family and it'll be quick. CT - I did a site visit on this property where there was a fire, correct. Do you know what the date of the fire? – HG - According to the realtor, it was February 17, 2023. CT - Was it vacant before the fire – HG – No, were people in there. CT - You submitted some plans from an engineer showed what are you proposing to do, am I right in thinking this is a 3-bedroom on the first floor and a 4-bedroom on the second floor? – HG - 3 and 3 CT - How many bathrooms? – HG - One each CT - Do they have separate entrances? – HG - Yes CT - Do you already have the separate meters installed for the utilities? – HG – There are three, but we're going to remove one. CT – Are you going to have the landlords’ meter, or there is no common areas with the utilities? – HG - We're going to flip it, so we don’t know CT - You have a deck in your plans. – HG – Yes, that's where it burnt and we're going to build the deck if it's possible CT – The current foundation, it’s a full foundation or it’s a crawl space? – HG - Is it a full foundation CT - Are you putting the deck on top? Or is it an issue with the cost of taking that down? – HG - I was planning to put some dirt and then do the deck on top. If it's possible. CT - It would be filled in, it wouldn't be left as a basement space – HG – Right CT - You're proposing four spaces in front of the building – HG - Correct CT - One thing did concern me on your plans the engineer has written on, that this is not to be relied upon as land or property line survey used for recording, or preparing in deed description. I did not set corners. The building location and offsets are approximately located on the ground and are shown for determination of compliance with zoning. So, in other words, he didn't actually go out there and measure. Mr. Commissioner – Marcos Devers, isn’t a licensed surveyor, so he can't do metes and bounds survey. He is a civil engineer, but as the Building Department, I'd require those corners would have to be pinned before issuing a demo permit. Especially, looking at this where are about-5 feet at the rear on one end, and less than two feet from the deck. This will require pins and proper delineation by a licensed surveyor before the Building Department would be comfortable issuing a building permit. If this board grants this special permit, I would asked the board to make it a condition that it has to be no expansion beyond what's existing. CT – Also that plays into the parking plan we need to make sure that the spaces are the right size. This is a strange triangular piece of property across the street from the big distribution center that I think will open, and the parking is coming in and then backing out into that roadway. Which it does cause me a little concern about the traffic, have you talked to DPW about whether you need a curb cut or not through the driveways? – HG – No CT - What is your timeline for construction after you received the permit? – HG - six months CT - Do you have the funding available for the project? Is it a financed project – HG – Yes Are you performing the work yourself – HG - Contractor CT - Is this the first time that you flipped a property? or do you have some experience. - HG - I got some experience. 15  CT - Could you tell me about those? – HG - One still working right now in Athol, although I did 94 Prichard St. CT - Have you always been able to complete the project or have you ever had to sell it prior to completion? – HG - I always completed. CT - What are you going to replace? HG - Roof, siding, plumbing, electrical etc. CT - Upgrade all the electrical and replace the heating system – HG – Everything CT - What's the expected Budget – HG - $170K Mr. Commissioner - This drawing don’t show what the current layout is, so we can't tell what the extent of renovation is going to be. Other than, it's a three families, and you’re knocking down the third floor, bringing the roof lower. This is probably going to have to be very extensive from an energy perspective. CT - I believe the burned portion is the square that's noted as a deck. You're turning it into a deck, and what used to be, an interior wall and is now an exterior wall on that side – HG - Correct MM – Currently, there is no roof, or it’s a flat roof? –HG - Flat roof MM - You're going to put a hip roof on it. – HG - No, we're going to replace the roof. CT - In the zoning ordinance, §181.337 is reconstruction after catastrophe, and it states that a non- conforming structure may be reconstructed after catastrophe, provided that the owner shall apply for a building permit and start operations for reconstruction within two years. So, we're within that time frame, and provided that as reconstructed, there's no further violation of setbacks greater than that existed prior to demolition. Moreover, the new side yard setbacks shall be not less than five feet, which is where you run into a problem because it's so close. In the event that the proposed reconstruction would cause the structure to exceed, these limits a special permit shall be required from the Board of Appeals, and so its answers the question of why you are here. MM - I'd like to move towards a continuance, so we can get some plans that really depict what the project is. Mr. Commissioner - If the Board is going to give a continuance, could be ask the applicant to come back with an existing conditions and a demo plan for the next hearing, so that all these questions can be further elucidated and it may be worth having the registered design professional here to answer questions. CT - The things I'd be looking for at the next hearing, plans that shows the existing layout, a demolition plan to show the proposed extent of demolition is. Also, a plan that states these are the boundaries and these are the measurements, because they need to know that you have parking spaces that are the right size and that they fit on the lot. A budget for what you're reconstruction is, and particularly want you to investigate what you're going to have to do with the energy code, as far as the insulation goes. JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-33 under §181.336 & §181.94 to Continue the Hearing to January 9th, 2024. BG – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Continue the Heating to January 9th, 2024 ZBA-2022-17 Jeffrey Summers 69 HIGH ST 8:15PM 16 Review of the Special Permit under §181.94 & §181.77 of the Fitchburg Zoning Code to operate a sober house pursuant to §181.313A5 within a reasonable accommodation in accordance under the Fair Housing Act 42 U.S.C. 3602 located in the Residential C District Map 19 Block 22 Lot 0 Present was Jeff Summers of Malden (Applicant and Property Owner) stating, CT - We are here on the review of the special permit, last review was in September. At that point, in time the board decided to continue the review due to the stated rendered decision. So, I'm going to review the conditions again and you are welcome to respond. The first condition; occupancy shall be limited to 12 persons, to create a living environment of one person per bedroom, defined as one room with a closet which is not accessible only through another bedroom. Petitioner may seek to increase the number of persons by modification of this special permit if petitioner creates more bedrooms on the premises, with such property modifications to be properly permitted and constructed in accordance with all municipal, state and federal law, do you have an response to that? – JS - This decision is under appeal, so I'm not sure if proper to continue with it CT - The decision that was previously under appeal was dismissed today. – JS – Yes, due to a technicality and we started the process again, and there'll be no technicalities this time MM - I would like to proceed with the review. CT - The occupancy shall be limited to 12-persons; do you have a response to that? – JS - Yes, and that's what I am in court appealing. I feel it is a racist decision on the board's part, because since 1955, 69 High St. has been used as a nurse at home, convalescent Home, Veterans Hospice, and each time had double occupancy. That is not up for dispute, it is a fact according to the city of property jacket. So, why it would change after four previous white owners, so the first black owner for this house is history it’s a single occupancy. MM – All other Board members would like to move forward with the Review – Mr. Byrne & Mr. Gallagher – In favor to move forward CT - You purchased the property approximately in 2020, correct. – JS - That is correct. CT - From the Disabled American Veterans Association. – JS - Yes CT - Did you view the deed? – JS – I've seen the Deed. CT - It came from a nonprofit corporation, right. – JS - Well, it was. From Leslie Lightfoot. CT - Who is Leslie Lightfoot? – JS - She was the owner of the property. CT - Have you met her in person? – JS - I haven’t. CT - Have you met any of the other owners of the property back to 1955? – JS - I've researched all of them, and they're all white. CT - I'm asking how you determined that. – JS - I did research on them and it was easy to find out their race. JS - Did you think they were black? – CT - I don't know any of those persons. CT - Attached to the deed was the certificate of occupancy, right. – JS - Yes, it was dated April 1st, 2020, signed by the previous Building commissioner Mark Barbadoro. CT - What was the occupancy listed on it – JS – 14 CT – Former building commissioner’s testimony was that it was for 12-residents and two staff. You've heard that correct. – JS - I have heard that, Yes CT - How many people are still there right now? – JS - Right now are 22. CT – So, that was the same number when the special permit was issued, right. JS - That is. However, the reason that the third floor wasn't used by any of the previous occupants was because, 17 Massachusetts law prevents nursing homes or convalescent homes from having occupants on the third floor; they are physically disabled and in case of a fire or other emergency, they cannot exit the building. Which I don’t have disableds CT - You had somebody attend the very first hearing, who was wheelchair bound. – JS - No, he might have been here in my favor, but he was not living in that house. When architect Brent Heinzer did his report, which included the third floor; and it showed that there was no building related reason why the third floor can't be occupied CT – At the time you purchased the property the certificate of occupancy didn’t include any occupants in the 3rd floor – JS – For nursing home, I am not a nursing home Mr. Commissioner - You're saying that the third floor was never occupied from previous owners, probably because of DPH or elder affairs rules. It's not a building code who regulate the nursing and convalescent homes. What did you do in the 3rd, floor to make it occupied – JS – Nothing, and those rooms were already there Mr. Commissioner - No renovations whatsoever. JS - No one. CT - You're basing your statement on the third floor regarding on the opinion that was offered by Mr. Heinz; from that report – JS – No, I'm basing it on the property jacket from the Fitchburg City Hall, which probably are 300-pages CT - I would imagine that between our original meetings and now, you've had people come and go – JS - I have a lot of long standing tenants CT – Did you have any residents at 69 High Street leave since July of 2022 – JS - I'd have to check my records, I'm not sure. CT - Have you issued any notices to quit? – JS - Previously I did, yes. CT - Did those persons leave? – JS - They were for the third floor, which I had it clear for a long time, until I thought that my request was constructively granted when you took more than three months to answer; and that's when I reoccupied it. CT – So, between July of 2022, and February of 2023, you vacated the third floor of the building. – JS - Yes, and the city inspected, it was empty CT - Then you reoccupied it – JS - Yes after you didn't respond to request CT - Have you made any other attempts to comply with that condition? – JS - I did not CT - Your intention to comply with that condition? – JS - I want to follow the law and the rules. CT - Second condition; the kitchen to be upgraded to commercial standards, which is generally defined as the installation of kitchen appliances in good working order, which are sufficient in size and number to service the residents on the premises, and of durable quality such as those intended for use in a commercial application. What is the response you have to that condition? – JS - Exactly as the last response of condition, I feel that it is a racist condition CT – So, it's a single family home kitchen. - JS - Same as your kitchen. CT - You acknowledge, that this hasn't changed since the initial decision, but there's a definition of the upgraded to commercial standards, and we put in a definition of that because the discussion at the hearing we were not looking for a restaurant kitchen to be installed. – JS - You shouldn't have put commercial kitchen CT - Have you purchased any kitchen appliances, since you've resigned? – JS – Yes CT - What did you purchase?- JS – Freezer, 2-refrigerators and a new stove, but not commercial. CT - Third condition is that renovations are to be completed within twelve months from the date of this decision. I'm going to state that, the appropriate interpretation of this is from the February filing date, and 12-months from that date allowed. Have you taken any steps to complete any 18 renovations, including any increase in the number of bedrooms - JS - The number of bedrooms are already sufficient, so there's been continuous renovations going on. CT - Any renovations of the kitchen. – JS - It's been painted, new appliances. CT - The applicant’s outstanding fines are to be paid within 12-months from the date of this decision. So, there are a number of fines outstanding. We have of course the $5800 in fines from the building department. We have fines from the contempt action. Attorney Pollack, could give us a brief synopsis of the status of the Housing Court case in the contempt order that was issued? – Atty. Pollack - 69 High Street specifically, there's a contempt order issued on April 28th, 2022. In which Mr. Summers was ordered to pay $7125 to the city in Attorney fees and costs; has not been paid. He was ordered to pay $11,650 fines for the period between September 7th, 2021 and the date of the order, has not paid. He was ordered to reduce the number of occupants to 12; he has not done that. He was ordered to provide to the city copies of all of his notices to quit and process summonses to the occupants; he intended to remove to comply with the order; he did not do that. He was ordered to provide the city with docket numbers for the summary process matters within seven days of filing; he did not do that. He was ordered to obtain the appropriate licenses, and I think this is relevant. He was ordered to get a lodging house license; he has not done that. He has not gone in front of the licensing board the City of Fitchburg. He does not have an occupancy permit. One important is that he hasn't complied making the property safe, and the biggest one being the back stairway, which is the second egress for the third floor. In addition, the architect he mentioned did the review on it, the court found and reed as follow: Mr. Summers retained the services of B Thomas Heinzer Associates, Inc. to a system, and having the premises examined, per the court order. Mr. Heinzer agreed that the violation cited by the City of Fitchburg were accurate. Mr. Heinzer submitted a 19 page report to the City of Fitchburg. He testified that the repairs to the premises were not performed in accordance with the plans, and believe to get back staircase was agreed to take out the bottom part. When they took out the bottom part, was done in a way that now required to be security or safety; bottom line is those stairs are not in compliance. They weren't and still are not in compliance now. CT - Am I correct in recalling that there was also a $50 a day of continuing fine? Atty Pawlak - Yes, there is $50 per day, until such time that all items on an order of September 7th, 2021 having been completed. CT - Looking that $50 a day fine, roughly I calculated that would be an additional $39,000. $50 a day for over a year. In the September hearing review, I asked you about the $5800 in building fines, and you stated that you didn't know and didn’t recall what they were. In May at the initial meeting, you did acknowledge receiving them, and in the July meeting, you submitted a document dated July 11th, 2022, signed and stating that you owed the city of Fitchburg $5800, and agreed to make a payment for them over 12-months. The first payment being $487 and $483 each month until the 12 months have been completed. The building commissioner acknowledged you paid the first $487. Have there been any further payments made? – JS - I don't recall them. At the same time it comes down in the same racist order, due to that the building commissioner signed off on that building in April 1st 2020, and the building was perfect. I bought it in August and the building was a catastrophe, it was fine when the white person owned it. After the Commissioner wanted to get in at 69 High Street to inspect, and I denied the inspection; there happened to be an emergency CT - You've been subject to a court order and a court order of contempt for this for some period of time, well over a year and was issued by Judge Carvajale of the Housing Court. – JS - It is under appeal. CT - You filed four notices of appeal and then you never filed the appeal document, those are stale appeals. There is specifically no order of stay in that action. In the last Superior Court case, you asked the court for a stay and you were denied. 19 Next condition; the applicant shall reduce the number of occupants to no more than twelve persons within 12 months. And the review date, the Building Health and Fire Department inspection shall be completed annually. I believe that there was an unsatisfactory result from that. Last, have you received a November 9th notice of violation of an unsafe structure again, from the building Commissioner? Stairs, being unsafe and exit. In addition, you are housing people on the third floor without a safe means of egress, two bathroom fans were nonfunctional, and one of them trips the circuit breaker when the wall switch is pressed. This is a fire hazard – JS - Last act before left, and those are fixed. CT - You have also begun housing residents in a room without the building code required smoke detector. Mr. Summers, I had a very nice moment with you at one meeting. We were agreed that disabled persons deserve safe, decent, adequate housing and I was very appreciative that you agreed with me on that. This board has been concerned throughout this process because of the history that you've had, because of the presentation that you've made. The persons that you house and I believe that you said at one point, these are very vulnerable people. It is difficult for them to find other housing because of their particular condition, and cost and these persons are not traditional tenants. They do not have the rights of a traditional tenant; they do not have the means to seek alternative housing easily. These are persons who can easily be taken advantage of by an unscrupulous landlord, and I am very familiar with specific incidents of that among sober houses. Including, being vacated without notices to quit, because they failed a test, and that's a standard provision within your agreement. They are not within the means to protect themselves from that. This is my concern, at least as one board member, with the operation of this very needed facility, providing a much needed service to people who need it. I want to remind you this Board's given you numerous accommodations, including waiving any parking issue. We've given 12-months for compliance; we waived the reapplication issue. This Board has tried to work with you, and still wishes to work with you to make this safe, decent housing. I don't see any evidence of attempts at compliance; you haven't even recorded the special permit with the Registry of Deeds. – JS – If I disagree with it, why would I record it? CT - I want to be mindful of what the Board has the ability to do. There were 12-months given for compliance on certain items, and legitimately I don't think those 12-months are up until we reach the one year date from recording of the decision with the city clerk. Which is February of 2023, so a number of conditions here that are not complied with. The permit holder expressed that he would be in compliance with the law, but has not taken any steps towards. However. He has continued to operate without recording the special permit; a special permit is not valid unless it's recorded. That's a violation of the zoning code, which is what we're here to enforce. My suggestion on this that we make a finding that the permit holder is in violation of the zoning code and recommends that a $300 fine be imposed; by the building commissioner for each week for a period of four weeks. If there was not compliance thereafter, move to the $300 a day fine. Mr. Commissioner - Differentiating between the 12-month periods, which she agrees with you, so the 12-month compliance isn't up and they can't revoke the special permit. Also, she's saying and I tend to agree from my experience in zoning enforcement, you’re in ongoing non-compliance because you never recorded the special permit. So the special permit technically was never granted, if it was never recorded, as states on Section 181.912. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-22-17 on a finding that the permit holder has not recorded the special permit and therefore is in current violation of the zoning code. JB – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 on the violation findings 20 MM – A second motion in the affirmative on the fining recommendations to the Building Commissioner of $300 per week for four weeks, followed by $300.00 per day until compliance is achieved. JB - Motion seconded Voted 4 – 0 on the fining recommendation to the Building Commissioner CT – At this point of time, we need to continue until the February hearing. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-22 under 181.94 & §181.77 to Grant a Continuance to February 13, 2024 with the finding that at the current time the permit holder is not in compliance with. Conditions one through five on the special permit. 1. Occupancy shall be limited to twelve persons, to create a living environment of one person per bedroom, defined as one room with a closet which is not accessible only through another bedroom. Petitioner may seek to increase the number of persons by modification of this Special Permit if Petitioner creates more bedrooms on the premises, with such property modifications to be properly permitted and constructed in accordance with all municipal, state and federal law. 2. The kitchen to be upgraded to commercial standards, which is generally defined as the installation of kitchen appliances in good working order which are sufficient in size and number to service the residents on the premises, and of durable quality such as those intended for use in a commercial application. 3. Renovations to be completed within twelve months from the date of this decision. 4. Applicant’s outstanding fines are to be paid within twelve months from the date of this decision. 5. Applicant shall reduce the number of occupants to no more than twelve persons, unless a modification is granted, within twelve months from the date of this decision. 6. Review – February 13, 2024. (Modified November 14, 2023) 7. Building, Health and Fire Department inspections shall be completed annually as a condition of the continuation of this Special Permit. 8. Sunset Clause – Special Permit shall Expire/Terminate upon the transfer or sale of the property or the business from Jeffrey Summers/Jeffrey's House, Inc. 9. JB – Motion Seconded 10. Voted 4–o to Grant a Continuance to February 13, 2024 6. MISCELLANEOUS 7. ADJOURNMENT 21