Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK ZONING Board of APPEALS Mar 04 2024 9:12 am 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING AGENDA – TUESDAY JANUARY 9, 2024 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. ATTENDANCE: Christine Tree (Chair), Michael McLaughlin (Vice-Chair), Joseph Byrne (Clerk) & Brian Gallagher 4. ATTENDANCE VIRTUALLY: James Reynolds (on 1341 Rindge Rd Petition only) 5. MEMBERS ABSENTEE: None 6. Hearings Started at 6:10PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2023-12 Mina Ghobrial 219 HIGHLAND AVE 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.94 of the City of Fitchburg Code to reinstate the variety convenience store in the existing pizza store pursuant to §181.313 located in the Residential B District Map 22 Block 16 Lot 0 No one was present or virtual to speak on this matter. CT - We've received a communication from the permit holder, and I'm going to read this into the records. As per our conversation on Wednesday, January 3rd, 2024, you expressed and asked to extend the review for another three to six months. Due to the fact that, you are not ready to open and operate the convenience store yet. Please reply and confirm that's correct? And the permit holder replied; “Yes” So, we have a request to continue for three to six months. Last review date was October 10, 2023, original decision recorder 12/5/2023. Permit holder has not yet opened or attempted to conduct the use. Also, he has an outstanding condition to submit a certified parking plan depicting the eight spaces required to show. We should modify the decision, to add a condition that the certificate of occupancy for the convenience store use would not issue until the parking plan has been submitted to the ZBA depicting 8-dimensionally compliance parking spaces and the ZBA has held that this condition has been satisfied, and the permit holder may request a review hearing before the ZBA once the certified parking plan has been submitted. JB – We should do six months MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-12 under §181.94 & §181.313 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to July 9th, 2024 amending and adding conditions: 1. No on-site service after 11:00PM in compliance with the ABCC. 2. Petitioner shall not operate as a package store, so-called, for the sale of alcohol to be consumed off-premises. 3. Any conditions from the License Commission as to the on-site beer and wine pouring license shall be incorporated into the special permit conditions. 4. Dumpster to be moved to the rear corner so as not to impede the flow of traffic through the parking lot. 5. Hours of Operation 11:00AM – 9:00PM Monday through Saturday, closed on Sundays. 6. Parking spaces to be striped and directional arrows painted on the pavement indicating that traffic would enter the parking lot from Pearl Street and proceed one-way around the building exiting onto Highland Avenue.  7. Special Permit decision to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recorded Special Permit to be provided to the Board prior to the review meeting. 8. The certificate of occupancy for the convenience store use shall not be issue until the parking plan has been submitted to the ZBA depicting 8-dimensionally compliance parking spaces and the ZBA has held that this condition has been satisfied 9. Review – July 9th, 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 No one was present or virtual to speak on this matter. CT - Our last review date was on December 12th, 2023, the outstanding issue was a certified parking plan. At that time, an issue also arose on comment of the Building Commissioner on whether or not there is a requirement for this project to reach the Energy Stretch Code, and the installation requirements under that code. After speaking with the Building Commissioner, today, he informed me that the permit holder has chosen to appeal that requirement to the state board. Which process would take four to six-weeks, and suggested a further review to extend until at least that time to allow for that process. We also have a communication from the permit holder stating, “Dear Zoning Board of Fitchburg, We aren't prepared with plans for the driveway yet. We really need one more month to get the plans together”. CT - I would like to add a condition where the special permit would expire in 24-months after the date of the vote granting the special permit, which was April 11, 2023, unless the ZBA has approved completion of all conditions. Secondly, the certificate of occupancy would be held by the ZBA for completion of all conditions. Finally, another question would be whether to schedule this for review in some sooner period of time, or to allow the applicant to request it. MM - In favor of allowing the applicant to schedule the review – CT - I would like to schedule a review for the 23rd month, before this expires. And if the applicant would like to schedule a sooner review; they may by request to the board. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-10 under §181.94 & §181.333 to that Continue the Review to March 11th, 2025 amending and adding conditions: 1. Not to be used as student housing or a lodging house. 2. Either a) the roof shall be removed altogether and asphalt shingles installed, or b) slate roof to be repaired or replaced and snow stops to be installed along the perimeter to limit the snow from coming down. 3. New vinyl siding to be installed over existing siding. 4. Any windows which are not new shall be replaced as well new exterior doors. (Modified 7/11/2023) 5. The dwelling shall contain no more than two and a half baths 6. Off-street parking to be provided by leasing two parking spaces at the train station garage or other private off-street parking area, if the same can be located within 800 feet of the lot boundary line. 7. No occupancy permits to be issued until all conditions have been met and an inspection conducted by the Board with review approved. 8. This special permit to be recorded at the registry of deeds within 45 days of the date of filing with the City Clerk or the special permit shall expire. 9. Review Date – March 11th, 2025. 10. Applicant to submit a certified parking plan to the building department depicting dimensionally complaint spaces to the left of the building and all required approvals from DPW (Modified 7/11/2023) 2  11. Project to be completed in substantial conformance with the plan by T Design, LLC dated June 25, 2023 with the demolition on the left of the building as depicted on said plan. (Modified 7/11/2023) 12. Permit holder may request an earlier review hearing before the ZBA once the certified parking plan has been submitted. (Added 1/9/2024) 13. Unless this review has been approved and/or the condition precedent to the Certificate of Occupancy has been waived by the ZBA within twenty-four (24) months after the date of the vote granting this Special Permit, this Special Permit shall expire and a new application for Special Permit shall be required for this use. (Added 1/9/2024) JB – Motion Seconded Vote 4 – 0 unanimously to Continue the Review to March 11th, 2025 ZBA-2023-08 JoAnne Hamberg 1341 RINDGE RD 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.94 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance issued after 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, dated September 27, 2023, pursuant to §181.332 located in the Rural Residential District Map MBL 69R Block 8 Lot 0 Present were JoAnne Hamberg (Petitioner and property owner), Mr. Mcgurn (Husband) both Lunenburg residences and Frank McParland (Dillis and Roy Engineer) Virtually Attorney Levine of Acton stating: We have to the best of our ability, finished everything that was requested to be done by December 31st. Our office submitted a letter to verify that we've completed all the tasks that were requested, we did find an acceptable source, I believe, for the. Landscape or conservation easement. Which is the Fitchburg Parks Department, and they've agreed to accept it. It's been pushed off because it got referred from City Council down to the City Property Committee. - CT – Yes, the City Property Committee reviews it, and makes a recommendation. The City Council eventually votes on it, and the timeline would be at least a six weeks. I have reviewed the proposed easement, and there have been some differences back and forth between versions and I did ask the city solicitor to forward what had been submitted to the City Council to the City Property Committee. In the proposed easement, there is a paragraph five on page two which allows modification or amendment of the easement only if all parties in interest agree. My comment in general is, if this was to be held by any other entity but a city government entity, I would not think it appropriate, but because we engage in representative government here, I always think it's questionable to make unchangeable something that is an expression of the will of people. I could foresee that at some point in time, in 50 years, the city's interests may be different regarding the holding of this easement, or that there may be some small modification that is beneficial to make sure enforcement happens. However, there would be no modification of the easement without the city's consent, and I interpret that to be the Parks Commission, City Council and the mayor; who would have to modify that property interest that easement. That's a lot of representative entities to say, we can never change this. In addition to that, there would have to be a modification of the special permit or a change in the zoning ordinance to build any more units, so that would also have to come back to the ZBA. Given that the condition that was an issue at the last hearing, although we put in our decision that it had to be completed by this hearing, I take the applicants’ actions and the fact that it does have to go through this mandatory city process to be approved - I take that as good faith working towards completion of that condition. At the last meeting (11/16/2023) we made a recommendation that the building commissioner issue a weekly fine until compliance was achieved. The building commissioner has not yet issued the fine, about the timing of the response to that decision, and his statement was that the applicant called the next day, and by Tuesday on the following week after the meeting, this request was before the Parks Commission. Therefore, I believe that the fine should be mitigated. I would recommend that one week's fine of $300.00 be imposed on the applicant, but that so long as this process continues to completion that no further fines for violation of that condition be assessed at this time. In addition, we have a report from Dills and Roy on the conditions that were to be completed by December 31st. Engineer - The specific conditions that were to be completed by December 31st, 2023 were conditions items from 11- I. Through 11 - R. Please see exhibit “A” All stockpiled material has either been placed on site or removed with the exception of one loam stockpile, and one common fill stockpile, both of which will be used to fine grade the remaining lots under construction. These 3 stockpiles have been stabilized with erosion control barrier for the winter season. – CT – So, there is still stockpiled material, but it's not anticipated to be removed from the site? - Engineer - Correct, it’s going be spread around the remaining pads that have loam on them. Item 11-J, all rock hammering on site is complete. The last item that required hammering was the installation of some fence posts, that’s all done. – CT - To understand, the raw crushing machine is gone, and there is no rock crusher on site? – JH –Yes, the only thing we have is the hammer. – CT - But you don't need to use it any further. JH – No, isn’t in operation and there's no plan to use it. – CT – So, if there is any report from any abutter or other person that there is rock hammering going on, obviously we would take that to be a violation of the conditions going forward. Engineer - Item 11-K, all processing of excess material is complete. Item 11-L, According to Dillis and Roy Plan dated August 13th, 2023, rough grading of the road and installation of the utilities and drainage in the road is complete. – CT - Have all of the inspections on that work been completed? – JH – Yes, everything’s been tested and the city of Fitchburg's been out there. – Engineer - The remaining grading within the roadway limits will consist of fine grading, base course paving and top course paving, which will be complete prior to the July 1st, 2024 milestone. Item 11-M, the base course paving of the driveways to all existing homes is complete as of the date of the letter. Item 11-N, Regrading of all existing home and rough grading of all the new home sites is complete. Item 11-O, Erosion controls are in place, and the contractor has access to additional controls to be installed as needed. The applicant has had the existing Ledge evaluated by an industrial seismologist geologist, and in their opinion, no further measures are required to stabilize existing ledge faces. A copy of those findings were provided to the board in November of 2023. Item 11-P, Regrading, loaming and seating of the outside perimeter of the project area is complete. Obviously, it will be touched up as needed in further growing seasons. Item 11-Q, Operations and maintenance plan was prepared by Dillis and Roy and was forwarded to the city on December 1st of 2023. – CT - Do I understand that there were some questions and issues from DPW on that plan that needed to be resolved? – Engineer -Not that have been communicated to me, but I can reach out to them to address anything Item 11-R, The daily fine of $300.00, if not all of the above items are complete by December 31st, 2023 and that was an acknowledgement of that condition. CT – Opening for any public comments on the matter. Hal Melanson of 13 Bennett Rd - About the fines, the Zoning Board of Appeals came up with a $300.00 a week fine. A month later, out of the blue decided, not to. What's the motivation? It smells fishy. – CT - Simply say to you Sir, that this is not the result of some kind of backhanded conversation. The goal of this Board is compliance and completion of the project; fines are a tool to be rarely used, only as a means to gain compliance from an applicant or a permit holder who is otherwise recalcitrant. At the November meeting which was about the issue with the easement taking place, the board proposal was to issue fines because of the actions of the permit holder. Given the permit holder’s concession to fix the problem and not to pursue a conservation easement to be held by the homeowners association. The applicant’s behavior in agreeing to fix the problem led the board to vote to it being a $300.00 a week fine. I also don't think that it's appropriate to fine any continuing matter, as long as that process is proceeding without delay on the part of the permit holder. Douglas Caves of 1345 Rindge Rd., I have some questions about process and expectations about the screening between my yard and the number of houses that loom over me. My life has changed drastically, when I look out the window now to gaze at the trees of the sunrise, now all I see is houses. I hope that there will be some screening that will mitigate that. So, the other question is about finishing the riprap or plastic wrap that goes at the bottom, its still there. Also, the completion of the loaming entirely. – Mr. Magurn - The plastic is the siltation fence, that can't be taken down until it's fully vegetated the entire parcel as a condition from Conservation Commission. Secondly, the spillway area, it’s currently un-loamed, is the spillway for the bay on the retention pond, and it has to remain as rip rap, as part of the overall design of a retention and detention pond. – Engineer - That rip rap is an erosion control method on the spillway itself, so when if the basin is overwhelmed and needs to discharge that's the low flow point, and that rip rap was designed by the original engineer to allow the water to leave the basin on the lowest. 4 JB – In years to come, what will happen when things start growing through that rip rap? – Engineer - Part of what I had to submit for this was a storm-water operations and maintenance plan. One of the main maintenance items is vegetation maintenance, at the basin. So, the applicant will need to ensure that there is no woody vegetation growing up in the berm itself, which can damage the riprap and will need to be hand maintained. – JB - Who's responsible for that? Engineer – The applicant, and that responsibility is outlined in the storm-water plan submitted to the city. Once construction is complete, the applicant is obligated to submit reports to the city under that OEM plan – CT - Is that through the DPW, or through the Conservation Commission? – Engineer - I've submitted it to both. CT – Lastly, is there any planned for vegetative screening in between the two properties – Engineer - The submitted plan does call out screening, which was the originally approved plan prepared by Whitman & Bingham calls for screening at the top of the basement slope. CT - Is there a specification as to the trees or species? – Engineer - It's called out as 10-arborvitaes 20-feet on center CT - What would you anticipate of completion time for installation of those? – JH - By November, we'll have everything in place and finished. CT - The next deadline that's approaching is a date of July, for the home pads and the lateral connections, the electrical utilities, and the road pavement as well as the recreation building. Do you think that would be a reachable deadline? – JH – Yes, as long as they become available, and we can grab then. Maryellen Christiansen of 71 Bennett Rd., on item 11-P, it's been regraded and loomed, and would like to ask if there are going to be trees? To restore what the state and the natural rural character of the area was prior to construction. – JH - We do plan on putting in some trees, but I think it's going to be up to the holder of the easement who's dictating whether trees are being planted CT - Any other person was present or online to make a comment on this petition. Attorney Levine - I would point out to the board that hasn't been mentioned, about the easement area, it has been increased substantially from the original plan of about 2-acres to 7.8-acres. MM - When will the yellow trucks disappear? It sounds you're selling them. – JH - I am slowly selling the equipment that I do own, and it would be off site by the November milestone. MM - Another comment on this unique dynamic where a rural residential, in a typical fashion to the abutters where they're looking at multiple lined up units. So, what can we do better for the residents who are pretty close to about10-feet apart? Can we give them some privacy? – JH - Maybe we can do a site walk to see exactly the two different areas. CT - My comment on this, when this plan was implemented, I did realize that the time line was very challenging to m. It just became necessary in the in light of all the history of this case. Having that impetus to complete it is what helped move all of the parties involved to do so. I would note that we have a release from the homeowners association stating that, they do not have any claim on this conservation easement. I do want to make sure that easement goes through and gets completed, or if for some reason the city declines to hold it that it comes back to us. Condition twelve on the existing decision says no building permits for any additional manufactured units to be installed on cement pads shall issue until those December 31st items have been completed. As to the Building Commissioner’s opinion, those conditions had been completed. So, the building permit hold at this point has been satisfied, and should be released. We've talked about holding the certificate of occupancy, which would allow the applicant to commence installation on the pads, but not the get that certificate of occupancy before signing the easement. I don't want to do that for all of them, but I’m thinking we would hold the final three. JH – I would ask that only two be held. Proposal to modify the condition regarding approval of the conservation easement as follows. Permit holders shall seek approval of the proposed conservation easement in form, substantially the same as submitted to the City Council at its January 4th, 2024 meeting expeditiously. – Atty. Levine - On the general discussion on the amount of time, I don't think the end of February is going to be sufficient. End of March might be a more reasonable amount of time. I would ask for another 60 days, if in fact the city doesn't accept it by the first period, otherwise I have no disagreement with what you propose. 5  MM – Due to the project’s progress, I'd be okay going with the five units, but I would like to add a condition. That during springtime we have a site visit to be able to walk the site and that the board reserves the right to add conditions with regards to screening that bring a final resolution to the abutters. JR - I agree and am in support, with what the board has discussed. MM – Motion on the finding that no further fines beyond the initial $300.00 should be assessed to the permit holder due to conditions violations at present. JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 on the $300.00 fines finding (JR- by Rollcall) MM – In regards to the easement, I have a comment to be sure that whatever is put in place, that we had a condition that no more units will be built, its need to add a language so it can’t be modified in the future. – CT - Because this easement can be modified or terminated by the two parties holding it, one of which is the City, I think that issue should be discussed by the City Council and City Property Committee. I share your concern that a future Board or representative government will not have the same concern of what we're doing, but I don't think it's appropriate to restrict the future completely. I would remind you that the ZBA would have to change the special permit for that to happen as well MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-08 under §181.94 & §181.332 to Continue the Review to May 14th, 2024 with the following added and amended conditions: 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. 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 original 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: i. 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. (Satisfied) j. All rock hammering on site shall be completed. (Satisfied) k. All processing of excess material, which is limited to screening, to be completed. (Satisfied) l. Rough grading of the road and installation of utilities and drainage in the road according to said Dillis & Roy plan dated August 13, 2023. (Satisfied) m. Paving of the driveways on existing homes. (Satisfied) n. Regrading of all home sites, including rough grading on new sites, on the premises (Satisfied) o. 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. (Satisfied) 6  p. 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. (Satisfied) q. Operation maintenance plan of the storm water drain system to be filed with the DPW and to be updated at least every three years. (Satisfied) r. Applicant shall be subject to a daily fine of $300 if all of the above items are not completed by December 31st, 2023. (Resolved) 12. No building permits for any additional manufactured units to be installed on cement pads shall issue until Condition 11 has been satisfied. (Released 1/9/2024) 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 of the original decision. 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 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. (In progress) 20. This easement in executed form shall be submitted to the Building Department and the Board no later than January 4th, 2024 and shall be recorded at the Registry of Deeds by January 9th. Violation of this condition shall constitute sufficient grounds for revocation of the Special Permit by the Board (Deadline extended – see Condition #24) 21. Review date – May 14th, 2024 22. No further fines beyond the initial $300.00 assessment should be assessed to the permit holder for violation of the conditions so long as she continues expeditiously to seek approval, execution and recording of the conservation easement, and satisfaction of all other conditions of the special permit. 23. A site visit during the month of April shall be scheduled by the permit holder through the Building Department for the Board Members to review the issue of screening for the abutters. 24. Permit holder shall seek approval of the proposed conservation easement in form substantially the same as submitted to the City Council at its January 4, 2024 meeting, expeditiously, and shall submit and record the easement once approved and executed by the City, but in all cases on or before April 1st, 2024. If the City or the Permit holder fails to approve and execute the proposed easement in substantially the same form, or the Permit holder fails to record the executed easement, both on or before April 1st, 2024, the Permit holder must submit a proposed alternative conservation easement for review to the Building Department and the Board meeting the requirements of condition 19, and execute and record the same. 25. No certificate of occupancy for the two final units on the right of Nijal Court shall be issued until Conditions 19, 20, and 24 have been satisfied. 26. Condition #22 amended and condition #23, 24 & 25 added by the Board on January 9th, 2024 BG – Motion Seconded 7 Vote 5–0 to Continue the Review to May 14th, 2024 with amended conditions (JR – by Rollcall) 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 No one was present or virtual to speak on the application. CT - I'm going to note that we had a communication from the permit holder stating, “Good morning, Mercedes. I just wanted to let you know that I won't be able to attend the board meeting tonight due to the time that I work at the hospital.” This was last reviewed at the November 14th meeting, there was no parking plan designating snow storage, and a condition on a fence to be placed was added at the meeting. We have an 18-month completion provision; we are also holding a $5000 completion deposit. One of the issues that had come up was again the stretch energy code and the insulation requirements. On this, we had some issues with whether or not the conditions were properly satisfied. We should look at a modification where we hold the certificate of occupancy; we establish a time limit for expiration of the special permit. Moreover, we allow the permit holder to request a review. BG - I'm wondering how the inspections are going, from the city of where they are in the process – CT - There was a plumbing and gas permit issued on September 21st, a road opening permit on October the 18th, and the trench permit. We also have a comment by Inspector Sullivan stating, all rough and insulation inspections have passed; final inspections will be next. JB – I agree holding the certificate of occupancy, and they will schedule a review. JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-02 under §181.3332 & §181.313 to Continue the Review with amended and added conditions: 1. Property to be operated as a two-family with no more than two bedrooms per unit. 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. 8  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. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Zoning Board of Appeals has found that all conditions of the special permit have been satisfied. 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 this decision is 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) 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) 16. No date is scheduled for the next review hearing. Permit Holder must request a review hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of the conditions as completed as well as submission of the certified parking plan with snow storage designated. 17. Unless this review has been approved and the conditions president to the certificate of occupancy have been deemed completed by the ZBA within 24-months after the date of the vote granting the special permit, this special permit shall expire and a new application for Special Permit shall be required for this use. 18. Condition #11 amended and condition #16 & 17 added by the Board on January 9th, 2024 MM – Motion Seconded Vote 4–0 to Continue the Review with conditions ZBA-2022-05 AG Dream Flip LLC 83-85 MARSHALL ST 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.3366 of the City of Fitchburg Code to reinstate a vacant/Abandoned building as a 3-family dwelling located in the Residential C District Map 10 Block 64 Lot 0 Present was Elias Gonzalez of Kendall Hill Rd., Sterling (Owner and Petitioner). No other person spoke on, for or against the petition. CT – Las review was December 12th, 2023, the special permit was granted a long time ago. The conditions were to place a construction safety fence around the hole, repaired staircase or fill in the hole, and to remove the tree overhanging the neighbor's property by January 9th, 2024. I went by this property today and a fence around it been installed. – EG - We rented a fence, and it has been installed, we couldn’t get it all around, but we did a halfway. CT - How about the tree? – AG - I went over to cut the tree, but the abutter didn’t let me do it, because she wants somebody professional to cut the tree. So, I have someone schedule for Sunday to cut it out. CT - Can you tell us a little bit, about what are your plans? – AG - I'm hoping to start this project in April, I got a couple estimates right now, but they can't do anything after the weather gets better. CT - I'm going to remind you that last year you made the same statement and then nothing happened. I will also tell you that if that fence had not been up for the whole field, I would have been looking to revoke this special permit today, because it's a safety issue. 9 JB - I'd like to recommend to the board, if the tree it's not done within seven days from this meeting, that we request a fine be imposed. Because it's destroying the roof, next door. It's putting a hole in that person's roof, so the longer it stays the more damage it's done. BG - I had a lengthy conversation with the abutter this morning, about, the tree removal and she indicated to me that things were moving in a positive direction between her and the applicant. She was a little apprehensive about having it removed, and she feels that the people that are coming out this weekend are licensed and. CT - This permit was first granted by a vote on November the 15th of 2022, and my suggestion is: No certificate of occupancy shall be issue until the Zoning Board of Appeals has approved the completion of all conditions by November 15th. 2024, this special permit shall terminate. Permit holder may schedule a review upon completion of all conditions, and we should schedule a review on November 12, 2024 prior expiration MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2022-05 under §181.3366 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to November 12th, 2024 with modified conditions: 1. Retaining wall on the house facing side of the street to be face blocked. 2. Parking spots to be paved with asphalt and striped. 3. Snow removal area to be paved with porous material. 4. Guard rail and dumpster screening to be constructed of solid vinyl fencing and not chain link material. 5. Granite steps to be maintained and repaired with a metal handrail added. 6. Grass to be installed in the front yard by May 2023. 7. Site Plan Approval, including the final approved plan and all conditions to be incorporated and made part of this Special Permit; the project shall be constructed according to plan. 8. Property to be kept clean during construction and construction debris to be removed regularly. 9. Dumpster to be emptied regularly, no vegetative overgrowth and area to be kept in a clean and neat manner. 10. Special Permit will terminate/expired upon the sale/transfer of the property from A.G. Dream Flip LLC prior to Occupancy Permit being issued. After issuance of Occupancy Permit, this condition will be released. 11. Permit holder to removed and replace the retaining wall to the right side of the proposed existing or new stairs. 12. Permit holder to place a construction safety fence in front of the stairwell, and the hole as well unless filled in by January 9th, 2024. (Satisfy) 13. Review – November 12th, 2024 14. Permit holder to remove a tree lining into neighbor’s property for a safety concern and to be completed by January 16th, 2024 15. No certificate of occupancy shall be issue until the Zoning Board of Appeals has approved the completion of all conditions if not by November 15th, 2024, or this special permit shall terminate. Permit holder may schedule a review upon completion of all conditions. 16. Condition #13 amended and condition #15 added by the Board on January 9th, 2024 BG – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Grant the Continuance to November 12th, 2024 ZBA-2023-15 Nadel Antonio 348 ELM ST 7:00PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.332 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to reinstate a vacant/abandoned nonconforming mix-used structure changing the use to another nonconforming less detrimental use as a duplex pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential C District Map 10 Block 115 Lot 0 Remote was Nadel Antonio (Property owner and Petitioner), and no other person was present or virtual to speak on, for or against the petition. 10 CT - We are here because there was a condition imposed that the building be demolished by December the 1st. At the December 12th, 2023 review hearing, there was an additional condition imposed that the demo inspection was to be completed by January 9th, 2024. NA - I demoed everything that was falling apart, all the wood structure, whatever you see up for concrete wall is going to remain for when we start building. There is a fence around it, still some concrete debris that I haven't been able to pick up yet, but I'll be picking that up within a month or two. CT - Are you aware that there was an injury on the property, which was reported to the Building and Fire department? – NA - I did not know. CT - The interim commissioner did conduct an inspection on January 5th, 2024. He stated that although you're making progress towards demolition, it appears to still be ongoing and again, he's concerned about the safety of the construction fencing given that there was an injury on the property. – NA - I'm not sure how someone got in there; it's not on the surveillance. CT - We have held the expiration of any deadlines until we see you in July, and I am glad to see the demolition proceed because it was in a much worse condition as to safety. However, if the intent is that it's going to stand in its current state with those concrete walls. Is the celler open? – NA – It’s, the basement is open, and the walls on the right and in the back they'll be part of the 2nd floor as we build. So, all the concrete is there now nice and sturdy, won’t go anywhere. It’s going to be part of our constructing, once we start building again. CT - When are you going to cap the basement? So, it is not open – NA - Wasn't planning to do anything else until I started construction. CT - I don't find the condition satisfactory, it's a safety issue to have that be open and uncapped. Condition was to demolish, and you're saying you're not going to demolish the entire structure and leaving an open basement like that, is not acceptable for the condition of this site while we are waiting for this to go forward. CT - Having an open hole is not acceptable. – NA – It’s landing as the first level of the street. If you want me to cap it, I'll have to build up that floor. I told you guys I'll demo the building, but I'm not really ready to start the project yet. CT - You did, but you did not demo the building, you demoed a part of the building, and that's fine, but that it has resulted in this condition. BG - Has your demolition been completed? – NA - Yes BG - To say this correctly was the wood structure, does the cement wall currently standing, does that stay and will that be incorporated into the building that is proposed? – NA -That is correct. MM - Looking back at this, the immediate need was to get the unsafe structure down, but the Board has not approved any design at this point, the Board has not verbalized that they’re in favor of the project. However, fences are made to be temporary during a construction, but not for a year or 18 month solution. CT - I'm also going to point out that in our prior continuance was condition three that states that after the current structure is demolished, the foundation may remain but must be capped. So, capping the foundation has been a condition since the beginning, so we are not satisfied with leaving this open-ended. – NA - If the building commissioner states that it needs to be capped, I will do. I would want to uphold the permit, so I can do it right and do the actual floor, and not do the job twice. CT – Suggestions to modify condition #3, to add to that the foundation shall be capped by February 9th, 2024 or be removed. And scheduled for review April 9th, 2024. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-15 under §332 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance to April 9th, 2024 with conditions: 1. The applicant is to have a demolition inspection completed on or before January 9th, 2024. 2. The overgrowth on both lots to be maintained while this application is pending. 3. After the current structure is demolished, the foundation may remain but must be capped. Foundation shall be capped or the foundation removed by February 9th, 2024. 4. All deadlines related to Petitioner’s rights to reconstruct the building after demolition and to constructive allowance of this petition for Special Permit are extended by tolling until July 11  31, 2024 by mutual agreement. Petitioner has signed an extension agreement to this effect and submitted to the Building Department. 5. Public Hearing continued to April 9th, 2024. JB- Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Grant a Continuance to April 9, 2024, with conditions ZBA-23-32 Henry Genao 118-120 INTERVALE RD 7:15PM Continuance: 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 The petitioner was not present at this hearing. No other person was present or remote to speak on, for, or against the petition. CT – On this matter, we have an agreement to extend any deadlines, through February 13th, 2024, and 35 days thereafter. We also have another request to continue the hearing until March 12th, 2024, with all deadlines extended 35 days thereafter BG - I have a concern, I visited the property today and although a lot of the building is secured with boards on the open windows, there's a breach in the fence which would allow someone to walk onto the property into the area that’s proposed to be the deck and the entire building is wide open. It's a result of the fire where a portion of the building had been demolished and removed. I would think that if the fence was secured to the building properly, it would eliminate some liability. – CT - We could consider that in order for this public hearing to be continued that the applicant is to secure the safety fence, around the perimeter of the structure within 7-days. JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-33 under §181.336 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the petition to March 12th, 2024 in acceptance of the mutual agreement for extension of time with the following conditions: A. Plans that show the existing conditions and layout of current structure. B. A demolition plan to show the proposed extent of demolition and disposal plans. C. Certified plot plan showing boundaries and parking measurements. D. A budget for the proposed reconstruction and renovation, including the cost of meeting new requirements under the new energy code. E. Applicant is ordered to secure the fence surrounding the structure within seven days from the filing of continuance. MM – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Grant a Continuance to March 12th, 2024 with conditions ZBA-23-35 Luis Rodriguez 513 WILLIAMS RD 7:30PM Special Permit under §181.335 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to build a 16’ X 20’ shed on the right-side of the house encroaching the side set-back leaving approximately 10’ from the property line pursuant to §181.416 located in the Rural Residential District Map 78R Block 14 Lot 0 Present were Luis Rodriguez and Debbie Jimenez (Property owner & Petitioners’) stating, we are building a shed to use for storage our yard equipment, kid’s bikes and to keep our yard clean and neat. CT - I'm going to note a couple things, this is an application for a special permit, not for a variance. It's a special permit application presented to us, as a preexisting nonconforming house. In our Zoning Ordinance, section 181.421 states that you can build a shed within 3-feet of a property line as long as it's 120 square feet or less, but your shed is too big. What you're asking is that we reduce the required setback from the sideline, which the minimum requirements are 25-feet and you're asking that it be 10? - LR - Yes. CT - However, you own the lot next door, which also, has 150 feet of frontage; which means it's also a vacant nonconforming lot. Therefore, when you have two nonconforming lots right next to each other, owned by the same person, they merge for zoning purposes so that it's considered one lot, not two, and it looks like that has 12 happened to your property. Therefore, you need a variance instead of a special permit in order to build the shed that close to the line. In order to obtain a variance the law requires a finding that there is some issue, with the shape of the lot, soil, the topography, or an existing structure that creates a substantial hardship for you. In other words asking for variance, is asking to break the rules. Therefore, I want suggest to you, if this could go elsewhere, or you could have a smaller shed (120-SF) that doesn’t require this permission, you might consider it. CT – Is anyone present who would like to ask a question, make a comment or a statement on this application? Ken Campbell of 485 Williams Rd., there are some trees and brush between our two properties, what the city does with a shed that's in the front yard. Does the statute you were referencing, can this be moved? Other than being unbuilt and rebuilt somewhere else. CT – No other person was present or online to speak on, for, or against the petition. JB – The applicant did this without a building permit, or without looking at the City by-law. We can't have them in front of the property; it has to be in the rear of the property. It's not attached to the ground; it's on blocks, so it’s relatively easy for Mr. Rodriguez to move it. BG - What is the current square footage of the shed? – LR -16 by 20, and when we moved to the city we noticed that everybody around our property has 2-3 sheds, so I didn't want to do that and built one big one. So, I went online, and it said that, if as long as it's on bricks, you could build it without a permit. In addition, I went on YouTube, and we started building the shed, not that I meant to break the law. The shed is mostly on the side of the house, and the house is located is towards to the back. So, I have a lot of property on the front and not enough in the back. MM - Another option instead of going the variance route, if you're able to lift the shed and move it so it meets the setbacks or rebuild it so that it meets the setbacks; which are 25-feet from the side and 50-feet from the back. Going under the accessory structures rule, it says. Sheds or accessory structures are allowed, not exceeding 120 square feet, and can be located in any portion of a rear yard, provided that they're setback. That's only for the 120 square feet, and then it says tool sheds, patios, gardens, small scale ground mounted solar, similar structures greater than 120 square feet must comply with the Table of use regulations. So, as long as you are 25 feet from the side yard. Technically, reading the language and the board can interpret it differently, but what the language says is the front yard exception only applies if it's 120 square feet or less. If it's over 120 square feet, it's a whole separate sentence that says it has to meet the table for all setbacks; it doesn't limit you from the front yard. CT - So the options before you are to ask for leave to withdraw this petition, and explore what was just discussed. You can also ask for a decision on this, and know that, if there's a NO vote, on this, there is a two year bar on reconsideration, which is why requesting to withdraw the petition may be better than risking a negative vote. You can also ask to continue it, to present new evidence that the special permit should be allowed. – LR – Yes, continuance is the best option. CT - I'm going to suggest continuing this hearing to the March 12th, 2024 meeting, and that will give you two months to figure it out the path you want to take with us. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-35 under §181.335 & §181.416 to Grant a Continuance on the Hearing to March 12th, 2024 JB – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Hearing to March 12th, 2024 ZBA-23-37 Carrol Caires 167 CANTON ST 7:45PM Special Permit under §181.33 of the City of Fitchburg Code to build a 3-family townhouse style to replace a preexisting nonconforming structure with the same use post fire pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential C District Map 141 Block 45 Lot 0 Present was Paulo Caires, Leominster resident (Property owner and petitioner), No other person spoke on, for or against the petition. 13 CT - On the matter is a property that had a fire, what was the date of the fire? – PC - I got the report from the fire department, and I believe it was March 29, 2022 CT - Almost two years since the date of the fire – PC - right CT - What was the use of the property before the fire? – PC - It was a three family, as I found out. However, the Assessor’s office records said that before 2006 or 2007 it was a two family, for more than 15 years. I also own a couple properties in town, and a three family makes more sense to me. So, I decided going to proceed as a three family, and I came up with the project. CT - You were not the owner at the time the fire occurred. – PC -No, I bought it maybe six months ago CT - What you want to do now is to build the three family in a different configuration, and you haven't been the owner for very long. Do you know what the original configuration was? – PC - Two units on the 1st floor and one on the second CT - Was there a basement unit, do you know? PC - I've been to the basement, and it's not a unit Acting Commissioner - I was partially involved with this, and petitioner showed me the plans. We reviewed the records and there are health code violations showing that it's a three family, so we know it was a three family. From the health department files, it was a basement apartment, first and second floor, and that's how we determined it was a three family. He showed me the site plan, which showed the setbacks from what he's proposing versus what existing. He's improving the setbacks dramatically from the existing on this, and he's still doing the three family. Therefore, I suggested a special permit for this using the provision for after a catastrophe. Under 181.337. CT - I am concerned that the building has remained in its state for so long, and you've been the owner for about 6-months. – PC - I don't want to touch it yet, I know it’s a safety concern. When I first talked to the previous Commissioner I was told that I could get a demo permit, but will lose the rights to build as an existing three family, and I might not get what I have because now the building is gone. The land itself goes down by 16 to 18 feet, I would have to do great improvements in order to make the land somewhat livable for the tenants. CT - Have you boarded up all the windows and doors which can be used as an entryway? – PC - They've been boarded up since the fire. CT - How many bedrooms and bathrooms are going to be in each of these units? – PC – Three and three. CT - How many square feet are each unit? – PC - I believe a little over 1500 CT - You had a John Karavolas as a professional engineer to draw these plans, has he been to the site in person or somebody from his office – PC – Yes, because we've done a soil test. CT - Do you plan to continue to own all three units, and rent them out or is this going to be a condo conversion? – PC - I'm going to keep it. CT – Is this going to be a complete tear down, and remove the foundation – PC - everything, but basically the utility step from the street. CT - Do you have a construction company lined up for this project? – PC - I'm a builder. CT - Do you have either funds or financing in place sufficient to meet the needs of the project? – PC - I do CT - Have you reviewed any issues created by the stretch energy code as far as insulation to make sure you're in compliance, and know what the costs of building are going to be? – PC - I know. CT - How long is it going to take, and do you have the resources available to and lined up to do that. – PC - I want it completely done before the snow comes, so by the end of the year CT - How many parking spaces? – PC - Six parking spots. CT - Were there 6 parking spaces on the old building. – PC - I don't believe so CT - Am I right in understanding that there would be difficulty moving the building over to the left because of the topography of the land? – PC – Yes, and also I did point out that there are two power lines, and I try to stay as far away as possible. If there is ever a problem, they need to fix something they can get in with a truck CT – Therefore, you only didn't comply with the setbacks because of the shape of the lot on that side. It’s a square rectangle shape CT - I'm going note that the decks in the back do exceed, and violated with the rear yard setback, but looking at the way that the land slopes down. I don't think there was any possibility to build a patio or something on the ground in the back. JB - The project is going to be beautiful for the neighborhood, so in favor 14 BG - The applicant had mentioned having a soil test, done. Can you tell me the reason why you were having a soil test done? – PC – He mentioned to make sure the conditions of where we're going to put the place it, would be the soil, and not water or something unsafe. BG - Is there a city sewer that you plan on hooking into with the proposed structure. – PC - There wouldn't be the requirement for the town, so I'm assuming that there is sewer on the street it would be connected to it. However, if the town requires me to do two more, it is what it is. BG - My only concern with this is the topography, it grades down, it’s quite steep and it’s going to take a lot of creative work to be able to use that yard efficiently for tenants. MM - The drawing that you presented is really nice, it shows some stone facade and plantings and islands is all that is there. Are we accepting this plan as submitted? – CT – Yes CT - Have you submitted a request for site plan approval to Planning yet? – PC – No, I was told that it didn't make sense for me to apply until I have the approval from this board. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-37 under §181.33 & §181.94 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. Dumpster not to be overfilled and emptied regularly. 2. Site to be kept clean of trash, construction debris and overgrowth during construction. 3. All construction vehicles shall be parked off-street and shall not interfere with the flow of traffic during the construction. 4. Permitholder shall make the building secure until demolished, including boarding all of entrances and openings in the existing structure until demolition. Building shall be secured within 30 days. 5. To be constructed substantially according to the plans by John Karavolas dated 11/29/2023 and submitted with the application, including the exterior depictions. 6. No more than three dwelling units and no more than three bedrooms per unit. 7. No additional dimensional relief is granted beyond the depiction in the plan. 8. All exterior decks shall be comprised of engineered building materials rather than pressure treated, except for the structural elements. 9. Any conditions imposed by the Planning Board through site plan approval to be incorporated as a condition of this Special Permit. 10. No Certificate of Occupancy can be issued until the Zoning Board of Appeals has issued a finding that all special permit conditions have been met. 11. Special Permit will expire and terminate if not all conditions have been and approved by the ZBA within 24-months of the date of the vote. 12. The applicant may schedule an earlier review before the board by request to the chair and representation that all special permit conditions have been met. 13. Review date - January 14, 2025. JB – Motion Seconded Vote 4–0 to Approved the Special Permit with conditions ● - Election of Officers CT – It is the election of officers for the coming year. MM – Motion to nominate Christine Tree to serve as a Chair for the 2024 Year. BG – Motion Seconded Unanimous vote to keep Christine Tree to serve as the Chair for the 2024 Year. CT – Motion to nominate Michael McLaughlin to serve as Vice Chair of the CBA for the 2024 year. JB – Motion Seconded Unanimous vote to keep Michael McLaughlin to serve as a Vice-Chair for the 2024 year. CT – Motion to nominate Joseph Byrne to serve as Clerk for the 2024 year. 15  MM – Motion Seconded Unanimous vote to keep Joseph Byrne to serve as a Clerk for the 2024 year. ● - DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO BOARD OF APPEAL RULES AND REGULATIONS! CT – Our final item is the revision of the rules and regulations, and what you have gotten this time is actual written wording and the revisions are. Page 4, Section 3, it says - That either the applicant or permit holder, may appear on his or her own behalf or be represented by an agent or attorney. In the absence of any appearance without due cause on behalf of an applicant, the Board may decide on the matter using the information it has otherwise received, that is existing. The revision is, applicants and permit holders should expect that the Board will move to decision using the information received if there are two or more absences without due cause, by the applicant or permit holder. Applicants cannot continue to have absences without communication or without really due cause. Page 5, Section 5 – Deadline for submissions of anything beyond the initial application materials. Any initial plan document or information material to the application must be submitted to the Board on or before 2:00 PM, by Thursday before the scheduled hearing in order to have the board consider the additional submission at the scheduled hearing. We have an issue with plans being handed to us at the hearing; it's not the appropriate way to review them. Therefore, if an applicant does do that, it will be a continuance to the next hearing date. Page 5, Section 6 – Under the briefs, must be submitted by 2:00 PM on Thursday before the meeting. Page 7. Section 4 - It’s about reapplications or repetitive petitions. The revision is - We refer to the state statute on repetitive petitions, which is Chapter 40A, Section 16. Further, to clarify both boards have voted to allow a rehearing and reapplication, may the petitioner reapply to the Board of Appeals in the normal manner. Page 7. Section 5 - Extensions for commencement of work under a variance beyond the original one year, and that’s to do two things to refer to the state statute, and say we must be compliant with that. Also, confirming that we can set an expiration date for a special permit, variance or use variance. If such permits for the prosecution of the work are not obtained, or construction is not commenced within the time specified. This clarifies what are our grounds for considering work commenced, and that's going to be the obtaining of the permits and the commencement of construction. Finally, page 9, Section 7 - Is to address the numerous reviews and the thought by the board, while we want to continue to have reviews, and be able to recall people for reviews. I've had a conversation with our building commissioner, who has reminded me that the reviews are valuable, and they are not frequently done by other boards, and it's a valuable service, so we don’t want to see the reviews go away, just be managed better. What I've looked at is designating cases as a high priority, or low priority. We want to ensure conditions are complied, and those would be the low priority reviews. We can set a 24-month termination date, or a 12 to 18 month termination date for a variances, unless the conditions have been approved. We would schedule a review date on the month before, and allow them to ask for a sooner review, and then reiterate that we can call them back at any time if we choose. Another option that's been suggested by the building commissioner, was to create a subcommittee for review hearings for the approval of reviews. On this, we would have at least three of our members on a subcommittee, which would hold additional meetings simply on reviews. We would have less time spent on our regular meetings, but people on the subcommittee would have more meetings. It's difficult for us to contemplate that right now, where we're down two members. 16 BG - With this review board, with the three members, wouldn't they have to be a quorum, or no? – CT - A subcommittee can have a lesser number, and what we might need to do is taken and have the subcommittee report and then have that report accepted by the board in a quorum vote. Mercedes Mata – We should also revise the rules on accessory apartments to reflect the current ordinance. CT – Agreed. MM - So, the mechanism there is that we hold the occupancy permit until satisfaction – CT – Correct; Low priority reviews shall contain a provision; the ZBA has the right to call the permit holder back at any time. 1) We've seen conditions that need to be done and they haven't even started on the conditions yet. 2) ZBA would call them back if we give them a year to get all this stuff done. We seem conditions going in a different direction than were written by the board, so it shall be a second paragraph inserted as the second paragraph under Section 7. The chair shall have the right to recall any special permit or variance holder at any time. Lastly, completing that second paragraph from the bottom, we're going to add a sentence that says. Low priority reviews shall contain a provision terminating the special permit or variance within a time certain, if the board has not found that all conditions have been satisfied. MM – Motion in the affirmative to Approve the Revision of the ZBA Rules and Regulations JB – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Approve the Revision of the ZBA Rules and Regulations 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT MM – 10:04 Motion to Adjourn 17