Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK ZONING Board of APPEALS Jul 15 2024 1:05 pm 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – APRIL 09, 2024 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. ATTENDANCE: Michael McLaughlin (Vice-Chair), Joseph Byrne (Clerk), Brian Gallagher, Robert Talbot, James Reynolds & Christine Tree (Chair) Last three petitions on the agenda 4. ALSO ATTENDED: Felix Zemel (Acting Building Commissioner) 5. Hearings: Started at 6:04 PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2022-30 KM R2 Realty LLC 80 SOUTH ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.333 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing nonconforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose (multifamily housing) located in the Residential C District at Map 68 Block 65 Lot 0 Present was Tony Molina (One of the members and owners of the project) stating, we are here for final review and proposing a final closeout of the project. MM - All the conditions were discussed and had been satisfied, you’re just waiting for a certificate of occupancy, correct? – TM - Yes MM – Have you had a chance to meet with the building Commissioner? – AT - Yes, we recently closed all the mechanicals and building permits. The only item that we discussed last time, and we want to discuss this evening is the sidewalk. We have the contracting company that will be doing the work, and I believe they already filed for permits to replace the entire sidewalk and reset all the bluestone on the sidewalk; we couldn't do that in the winter. MM - Is there any member present that would like to speak for, on or against this petition – None MM – Is there any member online that would like to speak for, on or against this petition – None MM - Mr. Commissioner, do you have any questions or comments regarding this? Commissioner - The applicant did apply this afternoon for his certificate of occupancy. Inspector Morreale was out today, but I've flagged the inspector for when he does his final inspection to let me know if the provisions of this special permit have been met. Specifically the preservation of historical architectural features, such as restoring the entryway, coffered ceilings, oak stairways, or floors. That's the only remaining special permit condition that I had any questions about? Then we'll be able to progress through issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Talbot and Mr. Gallagher – Applicant has done a great job. MM - There is an enormous tree that’s almost down will that be completed? – TM - It's on the agenda MM - Any time frame on that. – TM - I would say within six months or sooner MM - Likewise magnificent job JB – Why is it going to take six months? – TM - Do you have a preference, given a timeline? JB - How about in two months? – TM - Consider it done. JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2022-30 under §181.333 to Approve the Review with conditions been completed and no farther review is needed. 1. Petitioner shall comply with any and all conditions listed in its site plan as approved by the Planning Board as a condition of this special permit. 2. There is to be 1 studio apartment over the garage, 3 one bedroom units and 5 two bedroom units. 3. Exterior architectural elements to be preserved, restored or accurately replaced (design work around windows and elements above the roof line, copper on top of the roof and wood work in front peak) A more detailed list and photos will be on file with the Building Department for reference 4. Interior architectural elements to be preserved - Restore entryway, coffered ceiling in living room, oak stairway, and all oak floors that can be restored. 5. Property, including landscaping, to be maintained during construction, debris to be picked up and dumpster to be emptied regularly. 6. This Special Permit will automatically expire/terminate upon the sale/transfer of the property from KM R2 LLC prior to issuance of the occupancy permit, except as a reorganization of the corporate entity which retains the existing owners. 7. Permit holders shall meet with a member of the Board to review compliance with the architectural and historic provisions. JR – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Approve the Review ZBA-2022-33 Christopher Cordio 109 OAK HILL RD 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit to operate a restaurant under §181.313 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance located in the Residential C District at Map 63 Block 32 Lot 0 Present was Christopher Cordio (Owner and petitioner) stating, MM - There were a handful of conditions with regards to this project, I'm going to go through them and you can tell us where you're at. #1 - Paving and landscaping plan to be reviewed with onsite visit and a review at the April meeting and a vegetative screening to be provided between parking and the roadway, with the plan to be provided to the Board at least seven days prior to the site visit. – CC - I'm still working on that, everything slowed down with the winter months and the economy dropping on us. I had to get a few other projects completed in order to get this project back going, we are working on that landscaping box. We're going repave it before we open, because we're going to have trucks on and off doing all the work. #3 - Parking and structure to be constructed according to a plan submitted dated December 12/12/22. – CC - Correct. #4 - Hours of operation 11:00 AM to 2:00 AM seven days a week, subject to reduction or modifications by the License Commission. Have you been to the License Commission? – CC - I haven't even started that process yet. #6 - Parking area to be paved and striped adequate to meet the needs of the employees, customers and two handicap parking spaces to be constructed, and occupancy not to exceed 150. You're still a ways away from this. – CC – Yes, so we did the front half of the roof on Thursday, the back is getting done tomorrow. We have hired a sprinkler company and they are in the process of doing the drawings, so we could submit them to the Building Department, and that's our big thing to do before we can do anything else. Once the sprinklers are done next will be wire, plumbing, and final 2 construction. My goal is over the next two months to get the exterior done, so it will start showing that the property is coming along. MM - Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on, for or against the application? None MM – Is there anyone virtually who would like to speak on, for or against this petition? None JR - I drove by recently and it seems like there's a lot of action, looks like storage outside. Is all that related to the property? – CC – The dumpster in front with the cover on it, that's getting dumped tomorrow. We got to cover it every night, because we've had an issue with people illegally dumping in there. The truck belongs to us, and the container storage to keep our stuff that was in the building so it's not a blight outside. We've been having issues with the neighborhood cars in the parking lot, so we've been trying to address that as well. JR - How much time would you ask us for, bringing back the vegetation, paving and landscaping plan? – CC - I think probably we have it done in the next month, or two months. JB - When do you plan on opening? – CC - We were shooting for August, but I'm shooting no later than October. I'm paying for everything out of pocket, so I can ensure that I'm open for years to come. JB - So you would like to have a date in September to come before us again. – CC – Yes BG - Mr. Cordio, there was an onsite visit supposedly scheduled for April, which we were not able to do. What will we be looking at for a time frame for that visit now? – CC - We can do one at the beginning of May MM - So if we're going to extend it, you said two months. May 14th – CC - We should probably do June because I don't know if my engineer will have the parking plan ready JR – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2022-33 under §181.313 to Grant a Continuance on the Review until the meeting on June 11th, 2024 Amending condition #14 1. Paving and landscaping plan to be reviewed with onsite visit and review at the June meeting and vegetative screening to be provided between parking and the roadway, with plan to be provided to the Board at least seven days prior to the site visit. (modified September 12, 2023) 2. Permit holder is to schedule a site visit to review the paving and landscaping plan approximately one week prior to the June meeting. 3. Parking and structure to be constructed according to plan submitted dated December 12, 2022. 4. Hours of operation: 11:00AM to 2:00AM seven days a week, subject to reduction or modifications by the License Commission. 5. Any Conditions imposed by the License Commission are incorporated and become part of the Special Permit. 6. Parking area to be paved and striped and adequate to meet the needs of employees and customers, with two handicapped parking spaces to be constructed. 7. Occupancy not to exceed 150. 8. A sign plan, including design, dimensions and location, to be submitted at review and prior to installation of any signage. 9. Exterior of structure to be completely resided with siding, roof replaced and any dumpster to be screened by vinyl fencing. 10. The site is to be kept clear of construction debris, dumpsters emptied regularly, and overgrowth maintained during construction. 3  11. Construction to be completed by August 3, 2024. 12. Sunset Clause – Special Permit expires upon transfer of ownership from Christopher Cordio or his wholly owned entity designated to the Building Department within 30- days of the date of the decision. 13. Not to be operated as public nuisance. 14. Review – June 11, 2024 JB – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Grant the Continuance on the Review to June 11, 2024 ZBA-23-31 Lauren Nario 285 RIVER ST 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.313D11&12 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to continue the use of auto sales and to add auto body services pursuant to §181.94 located in the Neighborhood Business District Map 39 Block 51 Lot 0 MM - For the records, Mr. Gallagher will be recusing himself from this case. Present were Lauren and Jorge Nario (Permit Holders) stating, we made a lot of progress with the building, and the parking lot, which was messy. It had a lot of debris and stuff, so we did manage to clean that up. We also replaced the side door to the building that was in bad shape, painted, and fixed some of the siding that had come off the building today. We had the inspection for occupancy, which it passed and we still in the process of working on the dealer paperwork through the state. We have another inspection that we are waiting on, but everything else has pretty much been taken care of. We were broken into already, and they stole a few things and we had to replace the door again. We are hoping that, within the next 4 to 8 weeks, the state comes in and does their inspection for the dealership and we can try to start making money out of the building. MM - Is there anyone in the audience has any questions or comment regarding this permit? None MM - Is there anyone virtual that would like to speak regarding this case please raise your hand? None Mr. Commissioner - Just to confirm that I did issue the certificate of occupancy on this building earlier today. Inspector Sullivan did the inspection I believe earlier today and that was all processed. JR - Drove by and just to share my view, it does look very tidy. That was the exterior, and I trusted the inside is going just the way you want it to go. I didn't observe much signage there; do you have some plans for that? – LN - We have a sign up right now, but there were concerns throughout the winter to put any type of laminated stickers that they wouldn't stick to the awning because it was too cold out. So, we decided to go with the banner for now. Obviously once we do start displaying cars, it's going to look more alive, and not be an eyesore and look more as a business should. JB - Property looks very good compared to what it used to look like. MM - Have you applied for the auto sales license? – LN – We have got the dealer's license through the city, now we are waiting on the state portion of that. MM - Are you going to stripe the parking lot? – LN - We are, when weather permits. MM - And the intent is to have auto repairs, auto body and auto sales? – LN – Yes, but the auto body portion is going to take some time, it's not feasible until I can start making money out of the location. So that's going to take a few months, at least until I can actually get in there and start trying to sell vehicles. 4  MM - At this point you’re still getting things going, so maybe a review in six months, that gives you some time to get up and operating. – LN - Sure. JR – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-31 under 181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to October. 8th, 2024, amending condition #9 as follow: 1. Special Permit is issued for auto repairs, auto body repairs and auto sales, but Petitioner must obtain a motor vehicle dealers’ license and any other required permits prior to beginning auto sales on the Premises. 2. Petitioner to complete removal of any junk scrap or un-operated vehicles or parts within 30 days and provide proof in the form of pictures sent to the Building Department. 3. No exterior storage of motor vehicle parts or supplies and a maximum of 8 vehicles displayed for sale. 4. No junk or un-operated vehicle storage outside, with the term “junk or inoperable” meaning vehicles that are unregistered with expired inspections, unless they are held for sale for no more than 60 days. 5. Hours of Operations: Monday to Saturday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and Sundays 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM. 6. Petitioner shall operate in compliance with the January 14, 2020 plot plan submitted by the prior permit holder showing snow removal storage and lined parking spaces for vehicles. 7. Applicant shall schedule a review of any proposed spray booth with the Board prior to starting any spray booth operations. 8. Sunset Clause: Special Permit will expire/terminate upon the sale/transfer of the business from Lauren & Jorge Nario/Sasha Automotive LLC, and special permit is limited to operations at 285 River Street. 9. Review Date – October 8th, 2024. JB – Motion Second. Voted 4–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to October 8th, 2024 ZBA-2023-15 Nadel Antonio 348 ELM ST 6:00PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.332 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to reinstate a vacant/abandoned nonconforming mixed-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 Present was Nadel Antonio (Owner and Petitioner) stating that, we demoed the building and yesterday I got the permit approved to start making the cap. If you can give me a month, so I can have that cap, or if I can come back by the June 11th meeting. On condition, #4 I believe it says that I have till July 31st of this year, so I want to move it to a June 11, so I can have time to continue the building. MM - Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on, for or against the petition? None MM - Is there anyone virtually who would like to speak on, for or against the petition? None JR - On the right hand side of the property there was a concrete wall, is that still up? – NA - That is correct, that wall is staying and whatever we have now up is staying. JR - For my education, that wall is considered part of the foundation. – NA - That is correct. JB - We've gone round about the safety fence outside, and having the sides opened. I went by today, and there's plenty of opportunity for kids to get into the property and hurt themselves. I wish 5 that would be taken care of, as we've mentioned it’s to be screened properly. – NA - I could put more fence around that JB – That’s what you said the last time, and it's still the same way. – NA - Last time the building was up, so it was actually being closed off with the building JB - Next time you appear before us, I don't want to hear any more excuses. – NA - Will do. BG - When do you anticipate the cap for the foundation to be completed? – NA - I should have that framed up in a month, for the June 11th meeting. MM – This is an application that we haven't approved, without any plan for this site, as I had mentioned in the past. You may have an intent to use some of the foundation for the new construction, and the Board has given you a timeline to cap the existing foundation, even if it's in pieces, for safety reasons not for a future construction. I want to make sure, before you go too far down the road, that I think there's still a lot of pieces of the puzzle missing. The Board has to approve whatever it is that you plan on doing on the site. Also, the Building Department is going to be involved to be able to make a determination as to whether whatever is left on the site is even usable. – NA - I've submitted plans, and all the needed information to proceed. I applied to reinstate the abandoned nonconforming mixed-use, I wasn't ready and unfortunately, the building collapsed. That’s why we're going through the Building Department getting a permit to be able to cap the foundation, and I'm not going to cap it at one foot; it will be at 8 feet. That way I do have that cap squared off, when I do get the approval to move on. MM - The applicant has also purchased some land down the street to address parking, but we're still quite far away from any approval. Mr. Commissioner have you seem the foundation. – Commissioner Zemel - I have looked at the site a few months ago, not recently, but it would require an evaluation of those remaining portions from an engineer. I believe Mr. Antonio has already done that as part of this process to get the cap, but what he's calling cap is framing for the proposed first floor. The design that was approved is using Douglas fir and LVL’s to frame that; it’s what he's calling the cap. Those are designed for dry conditions, so he’s going to have to move fast with the process, and he's going to have to get a designer that knows the code and can get stuff turned around quickly so that he can maintain the integrity of that. You don't want to leave that out in the elements too long. MM - So maybe you can come back next month, because we have to look at plans for approving an overall project, which we haven't done yet. – NA – Yes, and by May 14, I can have that cap ready and then hopefully we can move forward. MM - Have you gone through the process with regards to the design of the two family dwelling, along with trying to incorporate what remains of the concrete? – NA - Yes, the plans that we submitted showed what is staying and what we're removing. JB – Are we going to need obtain new plans, due to the new energy code? - Mr. Commissioner – To be clear on the topic Mr. Byrne just said. The energy code is based on the date of the building permit application, not on the date of the ZBA determination, or any of that. It's the date of the building code application, and so that has not been submitted for this project yet. So, you're going be facing the stretch code. As of July 1st, that stretch code becomes even more stringent, so you really need to get this design in before the stretch code changes again. MM – Mr. Antonio, I'm going to be clear that you had some unforeseen circumstances with the property, and at the time the Board was willing to consider approving a special permit for a two family with plans to be determined to allow you to keep rolling. So, I'm trying to make sure you're cautious. With regards to your intent, it’s to probably reuse all of the concrete structure that sits on the property, and I don't believe the Board has approved a plan as of yet. So, do you want to leave this out till next month? – NA – Yes, thank you 6 JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-15 under 181. to Continue the public hearing to May 14th, 2024. BG – Motion Seconded Voted 4–1 to Continue with the Hearing to May 14, 2024 (JR – Opposed) 1. The applicant is to have a demolition inspection completed on or before January 9th, 2024 – Inspection conducted. (Completed April 10, 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 by February 9th, 2024 or the foundation to be removed. (Modified January 9, 2024). (Pending) 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 31, 2024 by mutual agreement. Petitioner shall sign an extension agreement to this effect and submit to the Building Department within 7 days after receipt. 5. Public Hearing continued to May 14, 2024. ZBA-24-4 Stephen Seney 1030 ASHBY STATE RD 6:00PM Continuance: Dimensional Variance under §181.93 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition (garage) along the left side encroaching the minimum setback require from 25’ leaving 12’ on the existing single-family structure pursuant to §181.416 located in the Rural Residential District Map S3 Block 38 Lot A Present was Stephen Seney (Owner and Petitioner) stating that, first, off, I want to say thank you to the board for the helping me to understand what the requirements were for a variance. Apologize for not being 100% up to speed at the last meeting on March 12, and I want to go through the four major variance criteria which are: The property is unique with topography, the slope that we had and soil conditions, ledge. Which leads us to not be able to comply with zoning in those areas. We also have an underground communication utility easement that runs along the property, which cuts the back part of our property in half, not allowing us to use that as well, so. The slope topography and soils are the big key hardships with the site, literal enforcement trying to comply with that would create big hardships. One of them would be the scale and scope of construction to try to conform to zoning; a lot of different things need to be considered such as, blasting out ledge, the effects on groundwater. Due to the scope of the ledge to remove approximately 1000 or 2000 yards, to the scale of construction and financial hardship that it would cause. Third, if the variance was granted, I don't believe that there's any detriment to the neighborhood, my nearest neighbor on that side of the property is about 400 feet away and along with that, we're 28 feet from the property line. On another piece of property in between that's 50 feet wide, so even if the variance is granted and we split that other 50 foot piece in half like in theory we still have our 25 foot setback. Even if another house was to be built on the other lot beside us, there's still just that 50 foot strip of land between the two properties, and the septic system in the backyard prevents us from doing anything behind the house. MM - Is anyone present that would like to speak on, for or against this application? None MM - Is anyone virtual that would like to speak on, for or against this application? None JR – On the second piece of property, it’s the abutter to this property? – SS - Yes, in total, we own about 60 acres of land, and part of it is the solar fields that are out in the back. So, to the left hand side of our property is at the strip like 175 feet of frontage on that parcel, and it’s a pipe stems down to 50 feet. So, our house is 28 feet from the property line, plus 50 feet over is another property line. JR - We're here discussing dimensional variance, how close are you to the first property line. – SS - 28 feet JR - How many feet do you need? – SS – 25 feet, and we're looking to put a 16 foot addition JR – You also said the next abutting property you also own, and that's 50 feet wide – SS – Yes, which access to the solar farm. 7 JR – So, Mr. Commissioner for the purposes of zoning, can those two properties combined. – Mr. Zemel - No, because they're development properties, and the 50 feet is access to the solar farm in the back. I believe the conditions for that roadway required only 30 feet or so, if he could subdivide that roadway partially and grant himself that land; then we wouldn't be here today. He would be allowed as of right to do it. JB - Did a site visit and witnessed the topography and the soil condition on the property, and there's nothing but boulders and ledge on the far side of his house. So, if he wanted to put the garage on the far side of his house, it would be impossible There it's a hill which goes up approximately 12 to 15 feet, so granting this variance wouldn't affect anyone on that side. In favor BG - You currently have a two-car garage spaces below your structure, and you're asking for this variance for two more or one more. – SS - One more BG - What will you be storing in the garage? – SS - My shovels, rakes, and household stuff. Additional context is that my wife works from home and requires a certain amount of privacy. So, the intent was to have an office on the 1st floor RT – I think it’s met all the criteria for the variance MM - When do you anticipate starting? – SS - Once this gets approved and ready to move forward MM – To be clear on the relief that you are seeking is 16 feet, which is going to give you a side setback reduction down to 12 feet. – SS - The addition will be 16 feet wide, so it could be 12-feet, 13-feet, because the lot does taper there a little bit. So, it could be a difference, I don't know if it's worth saying a 16 by 24. Addition, and then obviously we will provide an as built plan, and the reason is the property line is not parallel; there's a little bit of a skew to the further back at corner, so the addition could be 11-feet nine, could be 12-foot 3-inches MM - We need to accept the plan, and the plan doesn't show what that distance is. Is there one that's been amended? – SS - I had 12-feet plus or minus. MM - Mr. Commissioner, do you want to work off plus or minus? – Mr. Commissioner - I've been trying to get rid of plus or minuses site plans, because these are supposed to be by surveyor listing metes and bounds and have to be very specific. So, if he's saying, he wants to shoot for 12-feet, but he's afraid it might be 11-foot nine, then maybe he can amend his request to be 11 foot six to give himself the cushion. So he's letting us know in advance he's not going to be able to meet that 12-foot mark, because his dimensions of his garage are set, and he's not going to shorten his garage. Maybe he wants to amend his request instead of 12-feet to be 11-foot six to give himself that cushion that he needs, and that way he doesn’t has to come back for a modification later MM - But we have a plan that we want to accept, and it doesn't give us dimensions – Mr. Commissioner - But we can modify the plan and add that condition that 12-feet plus or minus is now 11 foot, 6. MM – So, you'd like to modify your request. – SS - Yes Sir, for a 25-foot setback requirement to be reduced down to 11-feet. MM - As far as a plan, as submitted? You want to see that later. – Mr. Commissioner - We would make the modification on this submitted plan that the +/- 12 -feet is changed to 11-feet, as a condition. JR - I visited the site, I do believe the site meets the conditions for a variance. I am amenable to the modification of a 25-foot setback reduced to 11-feet. JB - He meets the full criteria across the board BG - I visited the site also, and I observed the topography and the soil and I certainly can understand the hardship. Therefore, I'm in favor RT – I have no objections to the variance; in favor as well JR – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-4 under §181.93 & §181.416 to Grant the Dimensional Variance with a modification of the left side yard setback from the required 25-feet setback reduced to 11- feet. 8 JB – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant the Dimensional Variance ZBA-24-3 Dallas Zabala 376 CLARENDON ST 6:30PM Special Permit under §181.33 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to reinstate a vacant/abandoned nonconforming three-family dwelling pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential A District Map 103 Block 20 Lot 0 Present was Dallas Sabala (Owner of the property and Petitioner) stating that, we’re looking to keep the property as a three-family. We bought a property within the 800 feet for the three additional parking spots that’s needed for the 3-family dwelling. MM - Is there anyone in the audience to speak on, for or against the petition? Beverly Tefft of 60 Legros St., direct abutter - I'm happy to see that some movement is happening on this property. It's been vacant for a long time, it’s in need of a lot of repair, it's falling apart; it's an eyesore to the neighborhood. Windows are falling out, doors are open, the overgrown vegetation, and that's what I look at every morning when I go outside in my home. I hope the Board, whatever the decision is made, that it will be mindful of the character of the neighborhood. People take pride in their property. My concern obviously would be the parking, because it's limited and on-street parking is not conducive particularly in the winter time. MM - Is anyone virtual could raise your hand to speak for, on or against this petition? None MM – We had some responses from other City departments, Community Development and Fire Department. Please see exhibit “A” MM - I have a question for the Commissioner, is there the ability to move ahead with the three- family by right, if more than a 50% renovation is done. – Mr. Commissioner – Yes, and on January 26th spoken with the applicant, she's not planning any facade upgrades other than window replacement. So, a special permit is required because the requirement to revive it as a nonconforming structure, where the applicant rehabilitates the facade and at least 50% of the square footage of the structure and the applicant is not planning on rehabilitating the facade of the structure. MM - Is that true, you're not going to renovate the exterior of the building? – DZ - No. JR – It looks like it might need some updates on the outside, what's the thought process on that – DZ - We're looking to put more vegetation, and where there is concrete on the sides, we're trying for greener and gardening. Also, some outside lighting to illuminate the parking at night. JR - My question is not about the side of the building, or the ground. It's about the siding of the house, it’s all these asbestos shingles. – DZ - Not sure what could be done, if we can paint it. We can't remove anything since it's as asbestos. – Commissioner Zemel – It can be removed and can be covered over it JR - I'm not asking you to figure something out right now, I'm trying to understand because you were emphatic and quickly, no, we're not doing that. I would ask, if you would look into that question. Now, parking, there is some parking on the property, but I can't understand the parking. Could you explain the parking to me one more time please? – DZ - Yes, when I bought the property there were four parking spaces, however, we have a surveyor and he said that only three parking spaces meet the city requirements. Therefore, we bought another property close by, which has an extra lot, and enough space to accommodate the extra parking for 376. JR - In terms of close by, it’s 313 to 376. Is it a half block away? – Mr. Zemel - It's less than the 800-feet – JB - Have you measured it? Mr. Zemel – Chantel from planning has verified that. 9 JB - When did you buy this property?- DZ - A year and a half ago. JB - I went by the property today, it’s absolutely abhorrent that you have owned that property for that long and have not done anything with it. You haven't cleaned it up, the front door is wide open, and it’s not safeguarded whatsoever. It's terrible that you come from Dracut to Fitchburg, and you want us to do you a favor and give you the opportunity to take care of this property. It has to be cleaned this week - the trash, bottles, and the overgrowth. Now, the parking, I have been to 313 Clarendon St. and to me it's a lot longer than 800 feet, but the Commissioner said somebody checked it. It’s off Beacon St. and isn’t even on the same block; it's around the corner from the property. Not sure, I will have to go back. BG - How many parking places will you provide considering the three that you currently have on the site, and the additional lot? – DZ - We have 9. BG - In terms of the exterior, we've discussed that its asbestos. Is the plan to paint that. – DZ - There's no plan to paint, or to change the outside of the property at the moment. BG - In terms of the roof, is it actively leaking or is it good? – DZ – It will have to be changed. More will have to be changed. BG – 3-bedrooms per unit? – DZ – Yes MM - I'm a little concerned about this, in reality, 600-feet to park and walk, it’s a long distance. Once winter happens, people are going to park in front of the house on the street. It's going to happen, that’s the reality. Would you be able to look at some additional parking on site, because if there is some more room to get four cars? – DZ - We thought we had four, and we believe we can get four. Mr. Commissioner – It was alluded at the beginning of this hearing, and to put it bluntly. You're here for a special permit to reinstate an abandoned 3-family use. The Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance gives you the ability to reinstate that 3-family abandoned use, without needing this special permit, as of right, if you show enough parking, and if you commit to rehabbing at least 50% of the gross square footage and the facade of the building. The reason you are here is because you don't plan to upgrade the facade of the building, and even the zoning ordinance as of right says that you're allowed to have 800-feet between the house and your parking propose. You have 600-feet, but this Board may reduce that number as a condition of the special permit, if they so choose. So, it may be worth reconsidering an upgrade to the facade and working with my office. Perhaps you may ask this board for a continuance for a month, so we can work together and maybe you'll be able to withdraw the special permit after to move forward with your project. That's going to include a strong talk about the parking space lease agreement, because there are some concerns, I have with that, but as long as we can meet the zoning ordinance requirements we may be able to move forward without having to go for a site plan review or a special permit. JR - The reason that you're being forced to come here tonight is purely because of your choice of the façade, and if you made a different choice about the facade. You want to understand that you can still choose to continue to play this way, or you could play another way. – DZ - Thank you for explaining, if I have to change the facade to keep the property as a 3-family, I'm up to it. If I have to apply for something, different to change the facade and do everything it needs to be done by law and by the city codes, I will do. MM - We would give you the ability for a continuance tonight, it would give you some time to meet with the Building Department and explore the other option. It's going to require a 50%. renovation, and based on our visit to the property by looking the exterior, porches, perception of electrical, plumbing, walls that have been taken down. You're probably going to be at the 50%. Attorney Tree had made a comment on this, pertaining to the drafted lease should be amended to 10 state that it runs with the land on both parcels and binds any successors in title, and a notice of lease needs to be recorded at the registry, if this is approved, so that there is some permanency to it for future property owners. MM - Would you like to continue, to have a chance to explore the other option with the building commissioner? – DZ – Yes JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-3 under §181.33 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance to May 14th, 2024, under mutual agreement with the following conditions 1. Property be cleaned-up within a week from today's date – April 9th, 2024 2. Applicant to discuss with the Building Commissioner and explore the 50% renovation under the Zoning ordinance as of right 3. Petitioner to explore whether additional parking on-site can be available 4. Petitioner to amend proposal for leased offsite parking spaces to run with the land, if Petitioner proceeds on the special permit application JR – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Grant a Continuance to May 14, 2024 ZBA-24-9 Amico Realty, LLC 59-63 WHALON ST 6:45PM Variance under §181.313E3 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to erect an accessory 3,000 SF storage space on the same lot not connected to the existing building pursuant to §181.93 located Neighborhood Business District Map 202 Block 79 Lot 0 Present were Greg Roy (Engineer) and Mike Amico (Business Owner) stating that, we are requesting a variance from Section 313, a little history on the on the property because it is apropos. In 2012, the applicant requested approval from the city, through the Planning Board, for the construction of an approximately 6000 square foot addition, which was approved. It was an attached two floor structure, with 6000 SF on the upper level connected to Whalon St., along with 3100 SF storage on the lower lever with access on South St. Subsequent to that approval, the applicant proceeded to build and determined that the cost to install the addition on the property was going to be significant; and that cost was directly related to the presence of the topography and the soils on the site. There's a lot of ledge in that area, and the slope from the upper level of the terrace down to Whalon St. became cost prohibitive and burdensome for the applicant to construct that project based on those site constraints. Currently there is a two story building, retail space on the top floor on Whalon St, and storage space underneath on the lower level which is utilized by the applicant. The applicant would still like to get the additional storage component of the previous approval 2012 project, but now they are proposing a secondary building on the property, which will be a single story 50 X 60 foot building. It would have access from the existing parking area, and it would provide the additional storage in the amount of 3000 square feet that the applicant was intending to build back 12 years ago. That is the reason why we're here requesting a variance, and because under city ordinance this would be considered an accessory detached building. CT – What was the nature of the prior approval? – Engineer - It was a site plan approval, for retail space on the 1st floor and storage space on the lower floor. CT – Were you not required to obtain a special permit. – Engineer - I do not believe, it was a site plan approval CT - There's been no change in the zoning ordinance that has required the request for the use variance. It is only the detachment. – Engineer - I don't know, I believe if that old approval were proposed today, we may need a special permit for the use. It would be a special permit, so it wouldn't require a variance from your board, if it were to be attached. CT - The retail use that is currently going on in the Brown building is a conforming use, correct? – Engineer - To my knowledge, yes. CT - It's not a pre-existing nonconforming use, and there's no dimensional nonconformity that you're requesting relief from. – Engineer - There's definitely no dimensional nonconformity we are requesting, retail use is allowed as of right. 11 CT - Could you review the parking requirements and the dimensional compliance on the number and size of spaces – Engineer - Parking is shown at the top of page C3, the requirement from your zoning is 1 space per thousand square feet of gross floor area. The proposed 3000 SF addition would require three additional spaces, and we're proposing an additional 4-spaces in the front of the building. We are before the Planning Board for site plan approval, and we do realize we would need that as well to satisfy the ordinance. CT – What’s your projected timeline, once permitting is completed to construction of the project? – MA - We'd like to start this summer on construction. CT - How long do you think construction will take once started. – MA - Hoping four to five months, before the end of the year. CT - Have you engaged a contractor? Do you have funding secured to complete the project? – MA – Yes, we do CT - Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on, for or against this petition? None CT – Is there any member online who wishes to speak on, for or against this petition? None CT - We have a couple of department comments, from Community Development and Planning, stating that you are on their agenda for March 26th. Board of Health and Chief Martineau, FPD have no concerns Engineer – To the record, the Planning Board did open and continue the meeting to April 27th. CT - Mr. Roy could you address the variance criteria questions – Mr. Roy – #1 - Circumstances related to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures in question. In 2012, the applicant prepared plans for an attached building addition and received approval for the construction of the space at the site. Due directly to the site topography and soil conditions presence of ledge, and the cost to construct the additional spaces depicted in the 2012 plans was cost prohibitive. As such, the applicant is now proposing to construct the 3000 SF space in a separate building, the building is being proposed on a portion of the site where the existing grades are flatter and the earthwork required to complete the construction will be minimized. #2 – The substantial hardship would occur financially if the Board of Appeals deny the request. A) Financial hardship is directly related to the site topography and soil conditions exists with the construction of the previously approved plans, denial of the variance request would result in considerable cost increase for the project. Which is a project for the expansion of the business. #3 - Why the relief would not be detrimental to the public good. The property is zoned neighborhood business and is being proposed on a lot that is already being used for a similar purpose, as what is being proposed. There are no proposed changes to the curb cuts at the site, and off-site parking and loading is provided for on site. As such, there are no direct impacts expected on traffic patterns in the vicinity of the site. The proposed project will provide increased tax revenue to the city through the increase in assessed value of the property; this additional revenue will be generated from the proposed non-residential use, which will not provide further impact to the town's educational expenses. As such, the increased tax revenue is expected to positively impact public good. #4 - Why the relief would not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. The intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the general health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the city of Fitchburg CT - Can you quantify the cost increase that would be caused by building the attached structure, instead of the detached structure? – MA - Two to three million, comparatively as 1/5 of that cost for the structure that we're proposing now. CT - In other words, it would be 5 times more expensive to build the attached building because of the ledge. – MA – Yes CT - This is only going to be used for storage for the retail building on site, correct. – MA - Yes. JR - The relief you're seeking is a use variance and not a dimensional variance. - Mr. Roy - A use variance JR - From a setback perspective, is it not 2 feet off the property line – Mr. Roy – Yes, and there are no requirements in the neighborhood business district for side setbacks. JB – Visited the property and there would be no impact on the city or the neighborhood, and it would be good for the business. In favor 12 RT - Parking configuration that you're proposing is that not going to interfere with the garage bays. – MA - No. BG - Assuming the flooring will be concrete slab, is that correct. – Mr. Roy – Yes BG - Do you anticipate having to do any hammering or blasting on the ledge on the site? – MA - We have a retaining wall with 10 feet of clearance all the way around the backside and the right side of the new proposed building, it would probably have to do a little bit of. A minimal amount. BG – Could you guesstimate the square footage – Mr. Roy - Maybe 1000 or 1500 square feet area, or less MM - We have a mixed-use neighborhood, and we have a request to put an industrial building with 0 setbacks. Have you looked at any other alternatives? – MA - Any other capacity aside from whether it be Amico Flooring or the Elliott building, it's not too dissimilar from what those two buildings are. However, we haven't thought about doing anything different MM - What was the original setback in 2012? Versus today's. – Mr. Roy - I'm going to say was about 20 feet. CT So you're going to be conducting rock hammering? How long of a period of time do you think that will be going on? – MA - Boy. Hopefully very minimal, the less that we have to remove, the less expensive – Mr. Roy - I cannot imagine would take more than a week, maybe couple of days CT - Has any arrangement been made with your tenants or any of the abutters to notify them that this work might be going on? MA - We've discussed with our tenants, we haven't explained everything, but as the weeks go on, we'll explain more CT - Are you able to keep that activity to business hours? Weekdays for work hours for construction? MA – Yes CT - Are you able to keep all the construction equipment on the site? – MA – It shouldn't be an issue keeping everything on site. CT - When we have a use variance, there are additional criteria that we are required to find. Which is that the proposed use is in the public interest. That the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use would not create any hardship to the neighborhood, and that the proposed use would not disturb the existing character of the neighborhood. We had no abutters appear before us, no one to make comments or voice any concerns about this project. I particularly note that were this attached to the building it would not require a use variance. It is simply the detachment of the building that throws this from a simple expansion of the retail use into a separate accessory use as a storage facility. Does anyone have an objection to the allowance of the use variance? None CT - Let's have a discussion of conditions. Given our past concerns with rock hammering as we all aware of, in this case I’d like the applicant to be required to provide notice to all abutters within a 500 foot radius, seven days prior to any rock hammering. Of the times that rock hammering will be conducted and that's to put everybody on notice that there's going to be some disturbance. I hesitate putting a time limit on the time in which you can conduct rock hammering, because there's no knowledge of how much is needed. Time limitations, as far as hours that construction would be conducted, including specifically the rock hammering, should be limited to weekdays 9 to 5. Construction should be according to the 2023 Dillis & Roy plan; I didn't see any noted amendments on that after the original 2023 date. MM - What's the height of the building? MA - 15 feet, and then at the apex depending on the slope it could be 16 feet MM - Any landscaping to soften. – Mr. Roy - We'll be preparing our plans with more robust landscaping to the Planning Board MM – Do you find two feet are appropriate to do some planting and stuff. – Mr. Roy - We have to satisfy the planning board on that, but we do intend to landscape that strip and other portions MM - I have full confidence in the Planning Board, but if there could be any consideration to somehow increasing the setback so there is room for landscaping. – MA - The more we shift the building closer towards the existing building, the more rock that we'll have to eliminate and the more conditions will have to be met as far as sprinkling the building and some of the other regulations, so we need at least ten feet of 13 clearance off the building. We have all the intention in the world of making it look nice, we've been at the Amico Flooring building for over 25 years, and we tried to maintain and keep everything nice. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-9 under §181.313E3 & §181.93 to Grant the Use Variance for an accessory Warehouse with the following conditions: 1. The use variance granted is to conduct an accessory warehouse use to provide storage for the applicant’s retail business located on the same Locus. 2. Warehouse is to be constructed according to the Dillis & Roy plan dated February 1, 2023, as the same may be modified by the Planning Board through its site plan approval. 3. No rock crushing or blasting to be conducted on site. 4. Applicant shall provide seven days’ prior written notice to all abutters within a 500 foot radius of the times and dates that any rock hammering or similar activity will be conducted, and such rock hammering or similar activity shall only be conducted Mondays through Fridays, between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. 5. Applicant shall employ dust mitigation measures during construction. 6. Site to be kept clean of construction debris and dumpsters to be emptied regularly. 7. Parking to be paved with asphalt and striped according to said plan. 8. Applicant is required to obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board. Any conditions of site plan approval shall be incorporated herein as a condition of the use variance. 9. Review Date – September 10, 2024 JB – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant the Use Variance with conditions ZBA-24-10 Christian Podedworny 320 RIVER ST 7:00PM Special Permit under §181.333 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to reinstate a vacant/abandoned pre- existing non-conforming structure as a self-storage facility to make it climate-controlled pursuant to §181.94 located in the Adaptive Industrial District Map 39 Block 54 Lot 0 Present was Greg Roy (Civil Engineer) representing Mr. Podedworny and stating that, before you open this petition. We can dispense with this application; I may give you a brief narrative on that. We were before the Planning Board two weeks ago to open the site plan approval process, for this. We had received a zoning determination letter from the building commissioner back in December of 2023, which at the time had identified that the uses was abandoned. Therefore would require a special permit to reinstate it for the use since it's in the industrial the zoning district. Subsequently at the Planning Board opening hearing two weeks ago, testimony by the current owner, who is with us this evening, has provided testimony that the building is not abandoned, so it is a use that is in existence and in force, so it is still a warehouse storage use. The proposed use will be unchanged, so we do not need the special permit from your board that we requested. Further, after reviewing the use table in your ordinance, we would like to exercise our option to elect coverage of the site under the industrial zoning provisions which allows the use by right. A new zoning determination letter has been issued by the Building Commissioner on this. See Exhibit “A” At this point of time, we would like to request to withdraw without prejudice towards future filing should they be required. Mr. Commissioner- I would agree with everything that Mr. Roy said. Got confirmation today that the use is not abandoned, as a result of that, it's a continuing non-conforming use in the space. In addition, there's no additional parking requirement, even though they are planning on doing a lot of work to bring climate control into the building and increase the usable square footage inside the building, but they're not doing any expansion outside the envelope. Therefore, there's no change of use, and our parking table goes by gross square footage of the building, not usable square footage. CT - So this application was submitted on March 8th, we have a requirement to open the public hearing within 65-days. We do not need to vote on the withdrawal as long as we have not opened the public hearing. You may withdraw by right. If you could, please ensure that you give us a written withdrawal. – Mr. Roy – I have a written letter dated as today April 9, 2024. Please see exhibit “B” CT – Written letter was received and accepted. 14 ZBA-24-11 Brian Anderson 236 CHESTER ST 7:15PM Special Permit under §181.332 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to change in the non-conforming nature of the site to create a parking area for more than ten (10) vehicles for use by Anderson Funeral Home pursuant to §181.512 located in the Residential A District Map 102 Block 71 Lot 0 Present was Greg Roy (Engineer) and Phil Jordan (Both Representative of the Anderson Funeral Home) stating that, we are here to request a special permit to allow some modifications on the existing parking at 236 Chester St. Funeral Home is located at 316 Clarendon St. Which around the corner of Clarendon Street, Delisle Street and Chester Street. There is an existing garage structure on the site located on the southerly side of the parking parcel, which is proposed to be to remain. They would like to store the Funeral Home vehicles in that structure, and we are proposing some modifications to the parking area to increase the number of vehicles. Would provide for better flow and circulation particularly during times of funerals and attendees calling hours at the Funeral Home and traveling over to the Cemetery for burial. We have some triple stacked parking in the middle, but that's much more typical of these type of environments when you have a parking attendant the funeral director’s out directing folks to the appropriate parking space. I want to note that we also will have an application to the Planning Board, as it will require site plan approval, storm water management from DPW. We understand that will be our next step, but we wanted to come before your board for the special permit process first. We're intending to keep the parking very similar to the way it is, we're going to be removing some pavement in the far southwest corner because it's redundant and it's very difficult to access. It'll help, particularly with storm water management, once we get to that stage in the site design. We're also proposing to consolidate the curb cuts slightly, so the one on Delisle Street will remain as it is today, but there's a relatively unconsolidated curb cut across the entire front line of Chester Street that we intend to close off. Our experience with the engineering department is they will find that favorable and likely require it. We'll be closing off the curb cut on Chester Street, which we think will consolidate traffic and provide better organization to folks coming in and out of the parking lot. It is within the residential A zoning district, which is why we are before you, because it is a parking lot and that requires special permit from this board. CT - What is your understanding of the section under which you're seeking a special permit? The parking is accessory to the Funeral Home, which is across the street. Funeral Home is preexisting nonconforming use, there was a two-family structure on this lot that was taken down, that was also a preexisting nonconforming use because two family uses are not allowed in residential A. The parking is accessory, but to another site across the street. Unless we're treating this as a commercial parking lot, which we're not, correct? – Mr. Roy - I don't think so, we're considering an accessory to the Funeral Home use CT - I'm trying is to determine the use that we're looking on the table of uses, because parking aside from commercial parking facility which is #28 under Section D5, is an accessory use to the primary use – Mr. Roy - Which is my interpretation of what we're doing, it is a little bit of an odd case CT - It's separated by a street. Mr. Roy – Yes, but it's owned by the same entity. CT - The two ways I see it as modification of the preexisting nonconforming use of the two family dwelling on the lot that no longer exists, modifying to another non-conforming use, but less noxious use. Or are we going to treat this as an accessory to the primary use of the Funeral Home on the other lot? It's allowable as an accessory use by special permit, which is what would be required for an expansion of the Funeral Home as a preexisting nonconforming use. – Mr. Commissioner - I initially interpreted the two that you said, extension of the nonconforming use of the Funeral Home in order to allow it. Because the City code §181.3231 allows it in the business districts, which this is not a business district, but it’s an extension of a non-conforming use to 15 another that's less noxious by adding parking for employers, employees, customers and other users of the business person to applicable provisions. Saying that you're going from a non-conforming use to one that's not substantially more detrimental by going with that accessory use. If it were in a business district, it's an allowable accessory use as of right CT - Nonconforming Funeral Home use, or the non-conforming 2-family use? – Mr. Commissioner - Nonconforming 2-family use to a non-conforming accessory use, given that under section 181.5111 allows for off street parking spaces required, either on the lot within the principal use or any other associated premises within 800 feet. CT - Can you clarify, if all of the lot area is going to be paved and striped? - Mr. Roy – Yes, it is today and it will be CT - Have you met all dimensional requirements in the parking design? Mr. Roy – Yes CT - Do you require DPW permission for the second means of access? – Mr. Roy - We will need a curb cut approval, as a modification of the existing curb cut and then also stormwater management approval from DPW CT - Are you going to have the lot gated and fenced? – PJ - Not gated in any other location. CT - Will there be any parking allowed from any other use besides the Funeral Home use? – PJ – No CT - Will you have any other signage indicating the fact that the parking lot is intended to be used for the Funeral Home? – PJ - We will put in all our facilities, our exit and entrance locations, so they will control the flow, mainly because we want one standard pattern instead of head on type of conditions. CT - But not a sign that says Anderson Funeral Home parking? – PJ - I don't know if the Funeral Home director will come forward for a sign permit at some point, but it's not in this plan. CT - Any vegetative screening provided on the lot? – Mr. Roy - We haven't gotten that far, but we will need some, and we are going to be creating some green space between Chester Street and the pavement. – PJ -One caution I got on that is, from where the folks walk from the parking lot over to the existing Funeral Home. Unitil was concerned about the type of planting, to remain as low growth because for the utility wires in that area. They don't want any of plantings to impede for the future, and we don’t want to impede any vision on that road on Chester Street, or for the people who are exiting the parking lot to cross that street. CT – Are the two lots in common ownership? – Mr. Roy – Yes CT - Can you describe why this use is less detrimental to the neighborhood than the prior non- conforming use? Which is the criteria we would have to review the application under. – Mr. Roy - We're all familiar with funeral homes and the way they operate, it's a quiet neighbor, typically. The use there before was a two-family residential structure, and the parking that we're proposing as was stated dedicated for the use of the Funeral Home. It is used relatively infrequently, and for relatively short periods of time. My sense is a two to four hour window, where you might have a packed house for a large funeral or calling hours. So, to that extent in the fact that it's a use that's not characterized noise or rowdy behavior, it's a solemn type of use. Therefore, we expect it to be a low impact for the neighborhood CT - What's the parking capacity on the Funeral Home lot? – Mr. Roy – 26-spots on the Funeral Home site, we also proposing to improve the handicapped parking on the Funeral Home site, and consolidate that to have a good accessible route for folks going into the facility from the parking lot. In addition, the proposed 52-parking spaces on the on the new of Chester Street parking area. CT - What's the occupancy limit on the Funeral Home? – PJ - I don't know. CT - Would you say that the current use frequently requires on street parking. – PJ - I've been there 25-years, and on a busy calling hour, Chester Street and Delisle Street get buckled right around the building. Especially in the winter time CT - Is there any member of the public present who would like to speak on for against this petition? 16 Kevin Ledger of 206 Chester St. about 3 houses down from the Funeral Home. I can attest that they need the parking; but over the last year or so, we have been getting excess water coming through. Don't know if it's part of the parking lot problem or if it's part of a drainage problem on Delisle Street to Chester Street. The parking lot has an opening on the Chester and Delisle Street, and Delisle Street is flat and the water coming off that road and no drainage. There’s only one drainage located right on the corner of Chester and Delisle, so we've gotten our yard completely flooded now, so that’s my concern if they're working into drainage and making sure that something's going on. Ernie Jeffrey, Civil Engineer and a PE license in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, representing the owners of these lots, 220, 212, 206 and 198 Chester. They all are having the water problem that Kevin referred to, and I've done some field investigations there. It's definitely surface water concentrated running onto a lot house #220, which is at the corner of Chester and Delisle. It seems to be a result of no berm on the side of Delisle Street, if there was a berm, it would at least inhibit or stop some of the water going onto Lot 220. I think it's high during an occasional intense storm maybe of 10-year recurrence, that water could be washing from the entrance of the Funeral Home parking lot over the crown of Delisle Street; opposite where the access is. I took some shots on the opposite side driveway and on the center crown of the road, and seems fairly adequate on the westerly side opposite the apron of the driveway, which it’s about 2 1/2 inches or so, but on the other side on Chester Street, it's inadequate. It's only an inch and should be a lot more than that, so the occasional storm that might wash over and contribute to this problem. I put some preliminary calculations mostly from Delisle and storm is 11,000 gallons. If the existing parking contributed for 10-years storm, I got around 40,000 gallons for one hour storm. So, I would recommend the granite curb, not only side of Delisle Street, but at least 180-foot stretch. In addition, possibly a basin could be added to the opposite corner from where the existing Anderson parking lot is. I would think they could run a 12-inch pipe across Delisle Street, I wouldn't think it'd be too expensive for the city to do that. CT - Are you discussing installing the granite curbing on the opposite side of the street? Not on the lot of the applicant – Mr. Jeffrey – Yes CT - The additional basin on the opposite corner is obviously a connection to the city's stormwater system – Mr. Jeffrey – Yes, and apparently there's no drainage actually that runs down Chester Street, there's a sewer line but there's no catch basins or anything like that. Therefore, I would recommend the board not to approve the parking, because I wouldn't want a bad situation to make it worse, at least without a further investigation. Laura Ledger of 206 Chester St., we've always had a small buildup of water in our backyard, because we're at the lowest point of Chester St. However, over the last few years after they capped that lot, we've had much more excess water in our yard. CT – No one was connected online to speak on, for or against the petition. CT - Couple comments from the city departments. Community Development noted that if approved, site plan approval is needed from the Planning Board for Parking. Board of Health says no concerns. Chief Martineau says no concerns from FPD and from fire no concerns from FD. CT - Is there any increase in the impervious area under your plan from what the existing current conditions are? – Mr. Roy -No, we're actually reducing it. CT - Can you estimate the percentage? – Mr. Roy - I don't have the percentage, but it's not a big reduction. I wanted to make sure that the Board knows that the applicant understands that there is an issue there, and we've done some preliminary analysis. We haven't completed it. It'll be submitted along with the planning board process, because we felt that was more in their purview. The applicant sort of instructed us, and gave us a baseline of that issue and instructed us to include 17 that in our scope of work. So, we do have intentions of mitigating stormwater concerns on the site, and we will need a stormwater permit from the DPW directly. We can't make any commitments to your board relative to that, but we can commit is that we will include it in our analysis and we'll look to work with the City through the DPW in the engineering CT – Can we talk you into a 180-foot granite curb contribution to the city? – JP - I can't speak on that for Brian, but you can certainly make a recommendation. He's into that project pretty deep for quite a bit of money, by losing a 2-family home with that was a heavy cost of asbestos based abatement that he did not plan on. As far the water issues, we're fighting the same issue. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Byrne and Mr. Talbot – Had no questions to the applicant BG – The existing parking lot, when was that paved? – PJ - I'm going to say about 2018. BG - When was that two family home demolished? – PJ - July through September of last year. BG - Did it had a foundation or basement? – PJ - Yes, it did. BG - It was filled in, correct – PJ - Correct. MM - It's a good project, I would like to see some improved landscape to soften residentially with green space. CT - I do see this as a less detrimental use to the neighborhood than the prior two family home. I think that there is a lot of parking pressure in this area of the city, and it gets exacerbated greatly at the events for the Funeral Home and this is a vast improvement on that aspect of the neighborhood. I agree that we should have some landscaping. I don't want to take over the job of the planning board, but I do want to require it and to be designed within their purview, and if possible, have it be sensitive to the wet environment. I certainly know that there are types of pavement which are porous and are sometimes used, but the parking lot is already paved. I do want to condition the special permit on seeking relief for the abutters on storm water to any extent possible in coordination with the DPW. I do not have the authority to order you to install a granite curbing on city property across the street, and I don't have the authority to tell the DPW to do it either, but I certainly would advocate for installation of some berms where it’s appropriate to redirect the storm water into a drainage system, or at least not on other people's lots. I do believe that the criteria are met; it's an unusual case that we would be seeking the special permit in this fashion as a modification of a pre-existing nonconforming use to one that is less of a negative impact on the neighborhood, as an accessory use for the opposite lot, but I do think it is possible to perceive that way given that we allow off lot parking under §181.511. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-11 under §181.332 & §181.512 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. This Special Permit allows the subject lot to be used for parking accessory to the pre- existing nonconforming funeral home use on the opposite lot at 316 Clarendon Street held in common ownership, and shall not be used as a commercial parking lot. 2. Planning Board site plan review is required by separate relief. 3. The applicant shall seek to mitigate any effects of stormwater runoff on the abutting properties in coordination with the DPW and as directed by the Planning Board, and shall obtain DPW curb cut approval. 4. Landscaping shall be provided on all sides as appropriate for the residential neighborhood and as directed by the Planning Board. 5. Parking shall be striped and directional signage indicating traffic flow installed. 6. The applicant shall install signage indicating that parking area is to be used for the funeral home only. BG – Motion Seconded 18 Voted 5–0 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions 6. MISCELLANEOUS 7. ADJOURNMENT 19