Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK Nov 12 2024 11:27 am ZONING Board of APPEALS 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – Tuesday October 8, 2024 Legislative Building at 700 Main Street. Note: This was a Hybrid meeting, broadcasting and recording by FATV. 1. Call to Order: CT PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ALL 2. Communications: CT This evening we have a number of review cases on our agenda; generally, they are taken between 6:00 and 7:00, and may be taken out of order at the discretion of the chair. We will not have a quorum for the second item on the agenda, which it’s ZBA-23-31, 285 River St. It’s a review of a special permit, so we will continue that to the next month. In addition, the final two items on the agenda, ZBA-24-28, 21 Market St., and ZBA-2023-15, 348 Elm St. will be continued to the next month. 3. ATTENDANCE: Christine Tree (Chair), Michael McLaughlin (Vice-Chair), Brian Gallagher & Robert Talbot 4. ATTENDANCE REMOTELY: James Reynolds 5. ABSENT: Joseph Byrne 6. Also, Attended: Felix Zemel (Building Commissioner) 7. Hearings: Started at 6:15PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2021-27 James Pappas / 808 Main St LLC 808 MAIN ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.94 to open and operate a cold storage warehouse as a modification of a preexisting nonconforming use pursuant to §181.313E3 of Fitchburg Zoning Code located in the Downtown Business District Map 29 Block 31 Lot 0 Present was James Pappas (Owner and Permit Holder) CT – Special Permit was issued on from 2021, and last review was in November of last year and at that time permit holder was working on the interior of the second floor being developed as a cold storage warehouse, and replaced the roof. Can you give us an update from where you are now? – JP - Hasn't been a whole lot of change, I've been in negotiations with two or three different groups to try to office space upstairs. A real estate, attorneys firm, another group, which were interested in, and none of them have pulled the trigger yet. The big expense that exists now is the elevator; it's over $100,000, and then the fit up for the heating and air conditioning for the second floor. We thought the Public Storage would go right away, but I'd rather rent that for office space. I'm hoping that you don't take the Special Permit away, because if all else fails, I will go with the storage. CT - I am glad to hear that you're looking to get a live body rental on the second floor; we have a couple of limitation clauses as conditions in your permit. First, the ground floor not to be developed into storage, until the 2nd floor had been developed and we could see how you were operating there. So, right now you're not contemplating the 1st floor converting onto storage, where right now you have active business – JP – Correct. CT - Sunset clause, if there is a change of ownership. I do not want to make you keep coming back for reviews when you haven't started this use, so I am going to put this out for a suggestion to the Board to put this review off indefinitely, and modify condition four (4). It will up to you to reschedule it, but the occupancy on this use would not issue until you came back to the board for a review. – JP - Fair CT - You have the issue with a special permit of whether or not it's been put into substantial use within two years after issuance, or it may lapse. I’m not going to bring that issue forward now, but I want to you to have that warning, if there's been no use you may face from this or a future board the question of whether or not the special permit has lapsed. CT – No person present was present or remote to speak for, on or against the review. CT - Couple of comments the Board had received, and I don't think they are related to this Special Permit, but we have a clause that the business shall not be operated as a nuisance. You're not operating the storage business at all yet. Complaints are from different persons, but they all have to do with a motorcycle revving their engine in the middle of the night and supposedly at your property. Comments are from; Rebecca Schmidt, who lives at 805 Main St. Sabrina Alonso and Nathan Cody, please see exhibit “A”. Do you know anything of these? – JP - I do, one of the tenants who's been there for over 8-years who owns a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, which makes noise. He doesn't burnouts or reverse engine to try to make it difficult for people he does it when he needs to leave the property, he does his best to keep it down but he isn’t doing anything wrong. Mr. Talbot & Mr. Gallagher – Had no question for the applicant MM - With regards to the two year commencement of construction for a special permit, is this beyond that point already? – CT - The decision was registered December 13th of 2021, so it’s beyond those two years. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2021-27 under §181.94 & §181.313E3 to Grant a Continuance on the Review until a written request for review hearing is submitted by the Permit Holder and modifying conditions #4 & #10 as follows: 1. Signage shall be designed to match the character of the building and be unobtrusive 2. No additional chain link fencing shall be added to the property. 3. Hours of operation to be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 P.M. 4. Construction and a certificate of occupancy shall be completed on the second floor and a review hearing shall be conducted by the Board prior to a building permit issuing for the first floor, the Board reserves the right to institute additional conditions at that time. The certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued on the second floor until the Board has reviewed and found the Permitholder compliant with the conditions of the Special Permit. 5. Interior and exterior surveillance systems shall be installed to alleviate any burden on police or Fire. 6. Any exterior modifications to the building or landscaping must be approved on Review. 7. Dumpster shall be moved to provide adequate access in the passageway for vehicles and parking. 8. Business shall be operated as a nuisance. 9. Sunset Clause – Special Permit to expire/terminated upon the change or transfer of ownership from 808 Main Street, LLC. 10. Permit Holder shall schedule a review hearing before the Board for compliance with conditions prior to any certificate of occupancy being issued. RT – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review. ZBA-23-31 Lauren Nario 285 RIVER ST 6:00PM 2 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 Mr. Gallagher – Due to a conflict of interest recused himself. CT – Due to lack of quorum, 285 River Street will be continued to November 12, 2024 MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-31 under §181.313D11&12 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to November 12, 2024. RT – Motion Seconded Voted 3–0 to Grant the Continuance to November 12, 2024 ZBA-23-40 Travis Beauvais 180 MAIN ST 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.313D12 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to occupy and operate an Exhaust & Auto Repair (Motor Vehicle Repair Shop) pursuant to §181.94 located in the Downtown Business District Map 56 Block 26 Lot 0 Present was Travis Beauvais (Property owner & Permit Holder) CT – This Special Permit was granted on March 12th, 2024, to operate an exhaust and auto repair business which we classify as a motor vehicle repair shop. What’s the status of operations? – TB - Right now, we’re finally going through renovations, there were some holdups with building permits, but now I’m getting the scheduled work completed. I've reached out to a few people in regards to the parking lot plan, but haven't executed anything. I did get with somebody in regards to repainting the lines, and possibly seal coating the property before winter, but it isn’t done yet. CT - I think there's been a few differing opinions on the Board about striping, whether to use the current plan, or revise it. Were you able to reach out to traffic control at the Police Department, on that issue? – TB - I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to. CT - My concern about using the 2017 plan is the whole intersection has been rebuilt since then, and some of the parking seems to be not dimensionally compliant. One, we have a new exit from the parking lot on the side that's closest to the train station, and then there's parking spaces right along that side, maybe a little too close. I wanted to see whether parking control wanted anything specific about, don't take a left hand turn for instance; coming out of that exit because now Boulder Drive is now two ways. – TB – To understand your concern, which left hand side exit? CT – The one by the train station. – TB - There's no way anybody would take a left hand turn, unless they want a head on collision, and there's a sign it says “right hand turn only” right where that exit is. The biggest problem with that exit is that everybody cutting through the gas station through my property to leave, so walking across you got to worry about getting hit, people going through there, but the entrance is actually way bigger and ended where the parking lines are on that side. Actually, they put in a curb from the gas station so now everybody has to come into my property to exit, so it creates more of a nuisance from the gas station. CT – It seems that you are using one of the large trucks to block off one of the entrances. – TB – No, isn’t blocking it. I left it closer by the road so it’s a visible way of advertising, and my plan was to put a fence up on the side of the building where it meets the parking garage to stop the people from coming to the train tracks, but they're ripping it all apart right now, they're working on the parking garage CT - One of the other conditions was professional signage, which is about construct of the signs as the city really can't regulate any content of your signage. – TB - We talked to the Building Commissioner about a sign, but Wass Arthur is going to have to jump through a million hoops to put a sign there, because of the setbacks. He's dealing with similar issues on another project, so I 3 am not sure if he wants to get involved with it. Everything on the building is all professional signage by Wass Arthur CT - Another condition was no exterior storage of junk motor vehicle parts inoperable or unregistered vehicles. – TB - I have a question in regards to that, if a vehicle has been off the road because somebody hasn't had time to repair or restore it mechanically. Do they have to legally go and register before they can have it fixed? CT – No, so vehicles held for sale were held for repair which are unregistered or inoperable for 60-days or more would be considered junk. – TB – I understand, obviously I don't plan on having hanging anyway. CT – Condition #6, Parking spaces to be striped. Not going to modify that condition, but we are going to add a task. Sunset clause condition, so there's not been a transfer of ownership – TB – No, but why if down the road I want to sell the business, is there any way that the sunset clause can be lifted. CT - If you are looking at transferring ownership, the new owner must request the transfer of the special permit under the purview of the ZBA. Motor vehicle related businesses have been a source of potential nuisance, which means people who don't operate them well do not make sure that they don't have junk vehicles, leave parts outside, allow overgrowth of vegetation, create conspicuous fumes and odors. So, the Board likes to have an owner come in, understand the conditions of the Special Permit, have a chance to review the conditions and operate in compliance. That's what the sunset clause means, so I would not take it that it's impossible to transfer. It's just going to require a little bit of a public process. CT – No person was present or virtually to speak on, for or against this petition. Mr. Talbot – No questions BG - I'm open to having to continue the parking the way it is, if petitioner provides a full report from traffic control. – TB – Will do MM - It was one business together, the gas station and the auto repair. Half of the business got sold, unsure what mechanism that should have been triggered to prevent people that visit the gas station from passing over Mr. Beauvais's property. At that time the city redesigned that intersection, the city also put in a very small curb cut in front of his business, which is not adequate to get in and out. Mr. Gallagher mentioned traffic control, and maybe DPW get together to talk about what's the best solution for that intersection. CT – Agreed, I am sending an internal message through the City System, to ask for review. I would also like you to reach out to the traffic control, to follow up on the plan from 2017. We should allow about 60-days for these actions to the December meeting. – MM – I will go to January CT - If you have an issue getting a permanent standalone sign within the sign ordinance, you are free to ask for a modification of the decision. In order for us to grant a modification we need to see the design of the sign. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-40 under §181.313D12 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to January 14, 2025, with conditions: 1. No exterior storage of junk, motor vehicle parts, inoperable or unregistered vehicles. 2. Not to be operated as a public nuisance. 3. Property to be kept clean of trash, debris and overgrowth cut back and maintained. 4. Hours of operation. 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, seven days per week. 5. Professional signage only. 6. Parking spaces to be striped by June 30th, 2024 according to the September 1st, 2017 proposed parking layout. Applicant may request modification of this provision from the Zoning Board at review. 7. Dumpster to be stored inside the structure or inside a screened and gated enclosure at the rear left corner of the property. 4  8. Sunset Clause – Special Permit shall expire/terminate upon the transfer of ownership of the business from Travis Beauvais or John Fitch Exhaust and Repair, LLC or a transfer of more than 20% of the ownership of the LLC. Where the records of the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth do not reflect any evidence of the existence of John Fitch Exhaust and Repair, LLC, Travis Beauvais must provide proof of the creation and ownership of this LLC within sixty (60) days of the filing of this decision with the City Clerk. This provision may be modified at the review hearing to confirm, change or remove the name of the LLC as an allowed permit holder. 9. Review – January 14, 2025 BG – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to January 14, 2025 ZBA-24-31 Hussain Contractor 432-504 JOHN FITCH HWY 7:00PM Special Permit under §181.5355(B) & §181.333of the Fitchburg Code to replace a preexisting freestanding non-illuminate multitenant sign by an illuminated multitenant freestanding sign with a 430 SF area pursuant to §181.94 located in the Commercial District (C) Map 48 Block 1 Lot 0 Present via online participation was Mr. Shaq Hussain, (Contractor) from Houston, Texas, stating that the property owner is redeveloping the property. They're looking to revitalize it, by giving a nice little refresh to have a better aesthetic to the existing pylon sign. Sign is currently 568 square feet, and it uses an external illumination which is no longer operable. So, since they're going to give the fascia of the building a nice facelift, they also want to do the same for the monument sign. So, our proposal is a reduction in size, currently the sign stands at 30 foot 8 inches. We're bringing it down to 24 feet tall, and giving it a nice facelift and making it illuminated. CT – So, you're reducing the square footage of the sign to 430 square feet. – SH - Yes CT - Are you counting both sides of the sign in that square footage? – SH – Yes, it's a double sided sign, so it's not 2-individual cabinets; it's one cabinet lighting on both sides. CT - But is 430 the square footage on one side of the sign, or two sides of the sign. – SH - Technically it would be one side of the side CT - I want to be clear, because our ordinance looks at both sides of the sign to calculate the square footage. I want to make sure that you don't have a deficiency in what you are allowed, and I believe that you are required to complete a facelift of the sign under the site plan decision and the special permit that was approved by the Planning Board when you converted to a largely storage area on this lot. – SH - I'm not the property owner; I represent the sign company that's going to be completing the work. But that’s the information I was provided, as well. CT - Have you reviewed the terms of the site plan to make sure that the sign is in compliance? – SH – No, I've not, that's not information that was provided to me, unfortunately CT – No person was present or remote to make a comment or ask a question on this petition. Mr. Talbot - No questions, but the sign would be a great improvement Mr. Gallagher – In favor MM - Is this going to be a static sign, with no scrolling, flashing and no animation? – SH – Correct CT - Sign is located exactly where the current sign stands – SH – Correct; we're going to be reusing the existing foundation, and the existing pipe. Which is one of the reasons why we reduced the overall size of the new sign, it’s a little bit bulkier in terms of having more space for tenants and 5 it's a better look. The existing foundation as it stands, will not allow us to go as tall so it’s why we reduced it down to 24 foot. CT - Under section 181.5355-B of the Zoning Ordinance a freestanding sign shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. So, you have a preexisting non-conforming sign, and therefore you're looking to have a modification to that preexisting nonconforming structure. The existing sign drastically exceeds 100 square feet, and you are still only having one freestanding sign with 200 square feet of street frontage. Is that right? SH – Yes CT - The height does not exceed 24 feet. – SH - Correct CT - The bottom is less than 8 feet above the nearest adjacent Street, since it goes all the way down to the ground and is a solid sign, right? – SH - Correct CT - How far does the sign sit off of the street? – SH - 80 feet from the leading edge of the sign CT – Given that you’re 80-feet from the street, there should not be any obstruction to the cars entering into the Plaza. Since this is an illuminated sign, how is it illuminated? - SH – Internally, so there's going to be LED light sticks installed inside the sign through the tenant spaces. CT - So we're not going to have lights from the exterior that might cause a glare, or any light pollution to other persons. – SH - That is correct CT -We have the following prohibited signs, and I want you to confirm that the sign does not contain any of these things in section 181.536. No ribbon streamers, spinners, strings of lights, revolving beacon searchlights, animated sites, no flashing, rotating, making noise, moving or giving the illusion of moving, except for time and temperature. – SH – Correct CT - No tri-vision or multi vision displays. – SH - Correct CT - Not a temporary sign – SH – No CT - No signs illuminated by producing or containing sparks or open flames. – SH – Correct CT - No signs that imitate or resemble official traffic light signs or signals. – SH – Correct CT - It's not within the public way or the sidewalk. – SH – Correct CT - Why it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or to the city? – SH - It's not producing any light pollution; it's a more solid sign than the existing, so that's not any type of detriment to the city or anything. JR - In support of this petition MM – In fact the proposed sign modification meets all the criteria in the City Ordinance MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-31 under §181.3555(B), §181.333 & §181.94 to Approve the Special Permit as requested, granting permission to reconstruct a freestanding internally illuminated sign on the same footprint as the existing sign, containing 430-square feet of area on each of two sides side of the sign in accordance with the submitted plans, without further condition. BG – Motion Seconded By Rollcall Vote 5–0 to Approve the Special Permit as requested ZBA-2022-13 Adam Pishdadian 76 PRICHARD ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.336 of the Fitchburg Code to reinstate a vacant/abandoned building and convert the use from one nonconforming use to another less detrimental nonconforming use as a two-family dwelling pursuant to §181.332 located in the Residential C District Map 31 Block 80 Lot 0 Present was Hamid Pishdadian (Brother) of Warwick RI, representing the permit holder who is currently out of the country. Adam couldn't make it, he's in a special situation where he cannot fly back to the United States, due to the situation in the Middle East. So, I'm on his behalf requesting continuance to the next month. 6 CT - Is he unable to appear by Zoom, because of the situation where he is? – HP – He was here for a long time trying to finish a few things, the electrician called me and said that he finished what he was supposed to, but that's as far as I know. I don't know the full status of what's going on, with the house. CT - I know that several members on the Board and myself want an update on where the project lies. I'm willing to do the continuation, but if he's not able to come here in person, I would want him to be present virtually on Zoom at the next meeting. Will he be able to do that? – HP – He will be here next month Zoning Secretary – He communicated a couple of times this week, and I emailed him the Zoom link. However, you need to register first in order to get the meeting ID number, so he could connect by phone call. So, he called again yesterday stating that he couldn't get Internet connection to do that. CT - Does that seem to be a permanent problem, because he's located in another country – Zoning Secretary – I think it is the internet service. MM – Let’s move it to December to be safe CT - Will he remain here for a little while? – HP - His goal is to stay here until he finishes the job CT - I'm inclined with Mr. McLaughlin in case there's another travel delay. At the last time we saw Mr. Pishdadian there were some serious issues that were raised, about a neighbor that had made a complaint that he had hooked into their electricity, so I do want to know what the resolution of that was and for a status on completion. We had offered to be available for a visit in August; I don't think I heard from him on this matter. So, perhaps things did not progress from the last time he was here, he said it would be two or three weeks until completion. – HP - I know he had a lot of progress, but there are things that are outside of your control, but I know that they did finish the electrical work and the permit was approved. CT – So, just to pass on to him, we would like a realistic time estimate from him of when the work will be completed; and not that it's going to be done in two weeks. That's what we'd be looking for at the next meeting. CT – No person was present or virtual to make a comment or question in this petition. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2022-13 under §181.336 & §181.332 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to December 10th, 2024, continuing all conditions. RT – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to December 10, 2024 ZBA-2023-15 Nadel Antonio 348 ELM ST 7:30PM Review of a 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 Petitioner appeared virtually at the hearing. CT – ZBA-23-15, 348 Elm St. is listed as a continuance, but this Special Permit was allowed at the second meeting in September. We have some difference between the continuance paperwork and my recollection; clearly, the minutes are not yet available nor is the decision. Mr. Antonio, my recollection is that we had the next review scheduled for November. Does that meet with your recollection? – NA - Yes CT - We had asked for some more final version of your plan, which would take more than two weeks. – NA – I should have it by next week, the next day after the meeting I met the architect and 7 the foundation guy. We met on site and we came up with a plan, which was making the parking spot on the property. So, we're going to put four parking spots on the property, when we expand that. You should have it ahead of time, and we're going to do the two-bedrooms, instead of the three on each side. CT- I look forward to seeing that plan, is there any other update you want to give the board? – NA – No CT – No other person was present or virtual to speak on, for or against the petition. No other Board Member had additional questions for the petitioner. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2-15 under §181.332 & §181.94 to Continue the Review to November 12th, 2024, continuing all conditions: 1. The Premises shall be operated as a two family dwelling of no more than two bedrooms per dwelling unit. 2. The existing foundation shall be removed for a depth of ten feet from the existing building frontline, closest to the street. 3. Prior to any construction commencing, the Petitioner shall provide an opinion letter from a certified engineer based on an on-site inspection, verifying that the existing foundation and structure with proposed modifications is sound, safe, and compliant with all applicable codes, and that the Building Commissioner review and approve that opinion. 4. Petitioner shall provide a plan that fully depicts the project as proposed, which shall be subject to further review by the Board. 5. The Petitioner shall provide at least one of the following, at Petitioner’s option: a. A green space between the building and the streetline at least ten feet in depth with landscaping, including evergreen shrubs or trees at the front of the building, and a fence between the green space and the street. The fence shall not be constructed of chain link material. b. At least two compliant parking spaces within the building, one being allocated to each dwelling unit. 6. The existing foundation shall be resurfaced and the applicant shall present a plan to the Board describing the resurfacing. 7. The Board shall conduct a full review of the proposed plan when designs have been submitted and may modify, remove or add to the conditions of the Special Permit. 8. Parking area on separate lot to be completed and paved except for the final top coat prior to construction. 9. At the review hearing Petitioner shall provide a plan for development of the parking lot, compliant with provisions of the zoning ordinance regarding landscaping, screening and drainage. 10. Review date – November 12, 2024. RT – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Continue the Review to November 12, 2024 ZBA-24-28 John Le 21 MARKET ST 7:15PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.335 & §181.94 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 Single-Family dwelling pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential C District (RC) Map 141 Block 77 Lot 0 8 CT – ZBA-24-28, 21 Market St., this was the continuance from the September 24, 2024 meeting. This matter had gone to the Building Commissioner to see if we could have a resolution that did not require a special permit. We continued it to November or October, so what I'd like to do is have a motion to continue it to November. Clearly, the applicant is not here or online, and we don't have a final response from the building commissioner. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-28 under §181.335 & §181.94 to Continue to November 12, 2024. RT- Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Continue to November 12, 2024, continuing all conditions. 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 CT – Permit Holder is not present and we haven’t had any communication from the permit holder. I have seen no progress in permitting, no progress in inspections, nothing happening on this property. At the last meeting, we had a discussion with the permit holder, about whether he was going to proceed on the project in a timeline. At that point, in time he indicated that he was in need of financing to move the project forward, and he was in the process of application for such financing. If it was successful he would move the project forward, if it was not successful he might be looking to sell it. This special permit has a sunset clause on; it related to the ownership of the property. In addition, there is a condition as to time of completion, which has not been met. There were conditions to hold us on site visit, and review in June, which was not met. A condition to provide a paving and landscaping plan, which was not met. Construction be completed by August 3rd, 2024, parking lot be striped and paved, and none of these conditions have been met. So, a warning was issued at the last meeting, if he was not ready to proceed at the next review the board would consider revoking the special permit for conditions violated. It’s my recollection and summation of this case. CT - Nobody was present or online to make comment or questions on this petition. CT - How the Board wants to handle this special permit? Mr. Talbot - No comment BG - My recommendation would be maybe a continuance for another 30-days, but after that, we need to look more critically upon it MM - It's going to expire by December, but we had earlier conditions for completion along with a number of other things that have not been met. So, we just let things take its course, sounds he's not ready for the project at this time. Whether we revoke it today, next month, December or it just expires. CT - I do not like special permits hanging around, if he is going to sell the property it serves no purpose to keep it hanging around. He's not going to be able to transfer the special permit to a new owner, without the approval of the board. I would be willing to schedule the review in January for a finding, if nothing has changed, that the special permit has lapsed. A finding that the special permit has lapsed would not implicate the two year ban on reapplication. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2022-33 under §181.313to Continue with the Review to January 14th, 2025, continuing all conditions. 9  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. 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 – January 14, 2025 (amended October 8, 2024) RT – Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Continue the Review to January 14th, 2025 8. MISCELLANEOUS ● - DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO BOARD OF APPEAL RULES AND REGULATIONS! CT - We did take a look at the rules and regulations earlier this year, and the particular issue that I want to bring up, as an informational issue to the Board is revision of the fees for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Which are on page four (4), so under our zoning ordinance there are fees that we can change by a change our rules and regulations. There are fees that are set by the City Council, and the special permit fees are set by the City Council. The proposal under discussion is that all fees be set by the ZBA rules and regulations, rather than the City Council. There’s a question of what would be appropriate on top of that? A suggestion would be a communication going from the Board in a certain amount of time, prior to an effective date, so that the City Council has the ability to overrule what we might choose. Fees that we are charging right now have not been raised in many years, and when we look at the time it takes our department to process an application completely, forgoing the issue of all of the volunteer time that is given by the board members towards processing an application; it does not seem sufficient. In addition, we do not charge the property owners who are petitioning for the cost of advertising the petition. The advertising cost is approximately $100 - $135 for each petition. Also, in an attempt to prevent unwary and uninformed buyers from not knowing that there's already been a negative decision, or conditions when they buy property we've undertaken occasionally to record a denial at the Registry of Deeds, which is $105.00 each time. 10 So, the proposal would be that the base fee be raised to $400, and that the costs of notice and advertisement be separately assessed to the petitioner and that change take place within our rules and regulations. Also, to apply to all matters including special permits, and there would need to be an ordinance change before the City Council, as well. Any thought anyone would like to express on that proposal. MM - Residents pay taxes, and some of the work that's done at the City Hall level is part of paying taxes. I'm not sure if I would be in favor of raising the fees. BG - Given the fact that it hasn't been raised in approximately 20-years, I think raising it to $400 is within reason, considering how expensive things are. RT - The prices all need to stay or need to be $400.00, or can they vary? – CT - They can vary. We and the Planning Board both do special permits, and though it’s certainly not required that we maintain the same fee, I prefer to have it the same between the two boards. RT - I'm just thinking for the multi families, if we could increase on those would be more appropriate. – CT - Comprehensive permits under the provisions of 40-B is something that we rarely see. RT - I would propose going up to like $500, on commercial or multi families CT - I would like to do in the next one or two meetings some language for the framework of that, and we can talk about what the actual numbers turn out to be. Also, to talk about the procedure for assessing the actual costs, because I would prefer that it be collected upfront rather than later in the process. So, we might do that by estimating the average cost, and reviewing that every year. MM – What do other communities similar to Fitchburg do? – CT - It is very variable, depending on what the matter is. I'd be happy to bring that forward at a next meeting, and take a review of what other communities are doing. CT – In addition, we have had some major changes in the state housing statutes, with the state housing bill that passed. We have very kindly been allocated in this year's budget, some educational funds. I am awaiting information on some webinars that would be able to be taken with those funds, and I'm going to highly suggest the Board Members to take the opportunity to do that. In March there is also an annual training, which we have the ability to attend with the educational funds available. I would encourage you all to plan to do that. 9. ADJOURNMENT 11