Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK ZONING Board of APPEALS Jun 11 2025 8:51 am 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – Tuesday February 11, 2025 Legislative Building at 700 Main Street. Note: This was Hybrid meeting broadcasted by FATV. 1. Call to Order CT PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL 2. Communications CT – Update from 1342 Rindge Road received. 3. ATTENDANCE: Christine Tree (Chair), Michael McLaughlin (Vice-Chair), Joseph Byrne (Clerk), Brian Gallagher & Robert Talbot 4. ABSENT: James Reynolds 5. Also, ATTENDED: Felix Zemel (Building Commissioner) 6. Hearings: Started at 6:13PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-24-28 John Le 21 MARKET ST 6:00PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.335 & §181.94 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 Single-Family dwelling pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential C District (RC) Map 141 Block 77 Lot 0 Present were John Lee (Architect), Luis Hernandez (Property Owner) & Luis Hernandez Jr. (Interpreter) stating, CT - This matter had been continued a few times, to allow the applicant some time to explore possible resolutions through the Building Commissioner, thus potentially avoiding the Special Permit process, and is it my understanding that there is an avenue available you're going to be able to pursue. – JL - Correct. CT – It was confirmed that a resolution through the City Council is required for the deed restriction, as it cannot be addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). – Councilor Cruz - While it was hoped that the administrative process would handle the issue, further action by the City Council would be necessary to amend the deed restriction to change the date to allow the developers to fix the property. The applicant has worked with the architect on the drawings several times for the two-family dwelling, who's provided different options. Including a garage to add additional parking space, which this proposal has received approval. I am willing to pursue the matter through the City Council to determine a viable solution that would allow the developers to complete the construction and their investment through. CT - I'm going to ask Mr. Commissioner, anything to add to that. Would you agree that is the status? – Mr. Commissioner – Yes, been working with Chantel Fleck, and a resolution to the parking situation has been identified, which will meet planning requirements. The matter can be handled administratively once the City Council resolves the issue with the deed restriction. Therefore, my recommendation to the applicants was in anticipation for them to request leave to withdraw without prejudice.  CT - Is there any person present or remote today who would like to ask a question or make a comment on this case? – None MM – Is your intention to improve the front facade to align with the residential character of the neighborhood, as the importance of ensuring that the project contributes positively to the area’s aesthetics and overall betterment. CT – So, the appropriate procedure is for the applicant to request to withdraw the application without prejudice. Do you make that request? – JL – Yes MM - Motion on the affirmative on ZBA-24-28 under §181.335 & §181.94 to Grant Leave to Withdraw without prejudice, as applicant requested RT – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant Leave to Withdraw without prejudice as requested ZBA-24-32 Aparecida Da Silva 53 SMITH ST 6:15 PM Continuance: Variance under §181.416 of the City of Fitchburg Code to erect a detached 20 X 20 carport on the rear left side of the house encroaching the minimum required side yard set-backs (15- feet) leaving approximately five feet (5) from the property line pursuant to §181.93 located in the Residential B District (RB) Map 96 Block 16 Lot 0 CT - At the last meeting, we had discussed the easement and its interaction with the proposed project. There is an easement that is noted on this property that runs right through the driveway, and where the carport is supposed to be located. The Board was asked to express their indication on whether the easement could be removed, which would potentially influence a favorable vote for the project. The result of the vote was 2 to 3, with the resolution of the easement issue still pending. So have you been able to locate any additional evidence? Present were Aparecida Da Silva (Property Owner) and Robert Sutherland (Son-in-Law) stating that, the documents they found are from 1956. They consulted with two attorneys, one who handling the mortgage and another for title insurance. So, the title insurance would come into play if there were injuries due to the easement. One lawyer also mentioned the possibility of abandonment of the easement due to lack of use, as the property is now landlocked. The cost of legal action, approximately $7500, was considered too expensive to pursue further. The easement itself is not being used for any purpose, and there's no reason to pass through to another property anymore because they're all landlocked. BG – Was a legal notice as a request sent to abutters? Did you do that? RS - We did through the special announcement through the application BG - Were there any response from abutters? – RS - No, none whatsoever. CT – I’m going to review the variance criteria and have you respond on whether and how you meet this variance criteria, and these are mandatory considerations under the state statute. Is there a difficulty related to the soil conditions, the shape of the lot, the topography of the land, or existing structures? – RS - So yes, the existing issue obviously is the narrow lot, and it’s a significant issue. Topography, is not an issue, it's a flat land. The carport would not cause any drainage or any issues that way. CT - Does that issue especially affect this lot, but not the general zoning district in which it is located? – RS - Don't feel it is going to affect anything around; it's away from the road. You will not see anything 2  CT - The straight up abutments of the carport, and obviously the fence as well. – RS - The fence has already been there. CT - Does that issue create a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, and if so, what is that hardship? – RS - Having a breezeway will cause a financial hardship, and obviously obtaining a lawyer. CT – Can the requested relief be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of our zoning. – RS - I don't feel that's going to affect any egress or ingress from the property at all. It is going to be an open structure and anybody will be able to walk and see through as currently. Public hearing closed without objection. Board deliberation on this matter: Mr. Byrne, Mr. Talbot and Mr. Gallagher. – Had no questions or comments. MM - With regards to the easement, it sounds like they had discussion with other parties. I would like to hear from Board Members on the potential future issues, and try to understand what the applicant responses are on the hardship. I have a difficulty reducing a set-back down to 6-inch, the lot is long and narrow similar to the rest in the neighborhood. CT – Expressed appreciation for the applicant’s effort to present their case. It is difficult understand the zoning ordinance, and it can be challenging for the Board adhere to the state statute. The Board is required to find that an issue exists related to one of those four criteria: soil, shape, topography or existing structures, which is unusual within the district. As Mr. McLaughlin mentioned that while the applicant’s lot is narrow, it is not significantly different from other lots in the district. The hardship typically arises when a lot would otherwise be unbuildable, but the property in question does have an existing dwelling. It’s a stronger issue of derogation from the zoning ordinance of the proposed setback of six inches; I consider this too close to neighboring properties. Particularly in this residential neighborhood with small lots and close proximity between houses. As Board member, I appreciate the applicant’s offer to move the structure five feet away from the property line, but still consider this distance insufficient. Looking at the potential implications for future modifications, such as turning the carport into a garage. Which would have a more significant impact on the surrounding area. Therefore, I would not be in favor of this. MM – If we look at the set-back, reduction to five feet between the garage and the property line, would make it difficult for a vehicle to navigate into the garage. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-32 under §181.416 & §181.93 to Grant a Variance reducing the side yard setback to five (5) feet on the right hand side yard to construct a carport. JB – Motion Seconded Voted 0–5 to Grant a Variance to reduce the side yard setback to five (5) feet on the right side yard to construct a carport. Therefore the Petition for Variance was unanimously DENIED ZBA-24-39 Michael Marino 1179 ASHBY STATE RD 6:30PM Dimensional Variance under §181.416 of the City of Fitchburg Code to erect a 26’ X 24’ detached garage encroaching the minimum front yard requirement (40 feet) leaving approximately 29.7 feet from the property line pursuant to §181.93; or in the alternative, a requesting a reasonable accommodation from the minimum front yard requirement of 40 feet, reducing into 29.7 feet, located in the Rural Residential District Map S2 Block 39 Lot 0 Present were John Keefe (Property Owner) and Michael Marino (Land Surveyor) stating that, we are planning to build a 26 by 24-foot detached garage. This is a non-conforming lot in relation to the minimum lot area required under the current regulations, the primary challenge regarding its 3 placement stems from the existing structures on the lot and the lot’s shape. We have carefully considered alternative placements, but due to site constraints, this location is the most feasible. Moving the garage further back is not an option, as the septic system and septic pump are located directly behind it. Additionally, there are wetlands on the southwesterly side of the property, and we have made a conscious effort to avoid encroaching on that area. To maintain accessibility, we have left a 9.1-foot space between the proposed garage and the house, preserving the existing walkway between the two structures. On the north side of the property, the leaching field further restricts placement options. Given these constraints, we believe this location is the best and most practical choice for the garage. Furthermore, the garage’s placement will not require any new curb cuts or modifications to the driveway entrance. In addition, giving an update, we did just have a Conservation Commission meeting on February 5th, and the Commission was satisfied with the plans presented to approve the proposed garage project. We know the Board of Health noted that the existing septic line runs through the proposed garage location, and if the line needs to be moved, a septic permit will be required. Another purpose for this garage is that the applicant suffered a severe motorcycle accident one year ago, resulting in long-term mobility issues. The garage will provide a safer environment, reducing the risk of slipping on ice during winter months. CT – Why it can't be located closer to the house, or attached to the house? I observed there's a paved walkway going on the way back to the shed. What is the reason that you couldn't have access otherwise, and what kind of access are you requiring? Are you having like lawn equipment going back to the shed? What needs to go back to the shed? – MM - Well, he definitely needs to get back there, and if we put the garage attached to the house, then we're going to have to relocate the walkway around the outside perimeter of the garage. In addition, based on the existing topography, the land does slope down from the street about 5%, and everything is sort of sloping toward the wetlands. In addition, if the building is attached to the house, he'll come down the stairs and would have to walk in front of the garage. Therefore, the walkway is a nice level walkway, we can keep it clear, maintain it, and create a safe path for him. CT - Would there actually be stairs required to enter the house from the garage, if it were attached? – MM – Yes CT - Would those stairs take up more space on the side of the garage, in the nature of a breezeway? – MM – Yes CT - Hardship is the next criteria, and I don't want to inquire about your personal medical information any more than I have to. Have you been evaluated to be permanently and totally disabled? – JK - I have not. CT - What difficulties do you have that are generated by your medical condition? – JK – After the serious motorcycle accident back in April of last year, I spent 5 1/2 months in a wheelchair. My leg was totally crushed just below the knee, and had multiple surgeries to put it back together. I recently started walking with the cane probably a month and a half ago; I still have a lot of nerve pain throbbing at the cold weather. It's difficult to get around. CT - How does the garage improve that situation from the existing no garage parking, roughly speaking in the exact same location? – JK - It's difficult to navigate around the driveway now, to clean off vehicles from the snow. If I slip and fall, I could totally mess up the work that they've done on my body. With the garage, being able to park my vehicle inside, it would make it easier for me. CT – On the plan, you have labeled High Rock Rd. as discontinued. Do you know whether it was formally abandoned by the city or whether it ever was in that area designated as a public way? – JK - It was never a public way to my knowledge. CT - Is there going to be a living space above the garage? – JK – No CT - Is the representation of the architectural features of the building going to mimic the existing dwelling? – JK – No 4 CT - What is it going to look like? – JK - It's a steel building; it's going to be like a salt box type. CT - What's the approximate height of the building? – MM – ten (10) or eleven (11) feet CT - Doors on the front, right? – JK - Yes. CT - Is there any person present or online to ask a question or make a comment on this matter? Robert McGee, of 1020 High Rock Rd. I have no problem with the garage. The part about High Rock Rd. that's been an issue for a lot of years. Since 1981, they've tried to close the road many times. I do not want it closed. I have 2100 feet of Rd. frontage along that, if I was willing to open up some of the road and go through, I could. Additionally, my deed states as High Rock Rd. it doesn't read “The paper Rd.” it doesn't say “proposed Rd.” JB - Visited the property and as it was stated it drops down on a five degree slant from the road itself, and where the garage is proposed it will fit well because it doesn't go close to the wetlands and it's not interfering with his septic system, BG - In favor of the proposal CT - Councilor Fleming submitted a public comment, expressed strong support for the project, considering this addition would bring significant benefits to our neighborhood. CT - Is there an issue relating to soil shaped topography or existing structures that especially affects this parcel? But does not generally affect the zoning district? MM - Due to the non-conformity with the lot area, shape, and the current structure’s location. Wetlands definitely are an issue. CT - What is the substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, that would be a result of the imposition of the zoning ordinance requirements? – MM – Significant work will required to move the septic system engendering substantial financial cost and greater burden other than moving one line. CT – Is the relief without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. If so, why? – MM - The proposal it’s on a residential neighborhood and the use will remain as a residential use. Mr. Byrne, Mr. Talbot and Mr. Gallagher – Expressed their support in favor of the petition MM - Shape of the lot is triangular, wetland soil conditions. There is a hardship with placement elsewhere, given the location of the leach field, septic system. Conservation approved it; the petition meets almost all the criteria for variance. CT - I agree it meets the first criteria in that the wetlands are a soil issue; we only need to meet one of the first four. As for the substantial hardship, I did want to understand why it couldn't be attached to the house, because it could reduce the nonconformity by10-feet at least. I did want to understand why that wouldn't be a benefit given applicant’s difficulty getting around, having an attached garage and being able to go into the house without going outside in the bad weather. I do think there's a substantial hardship that lies in the fact that relocation anywhere else on the lot is going to require a substantial expense. I think it meets the variance criteria. We still have the 30- feet off the road, and the opposing property is similarly situated or even closer to the road than yours. On the left and right side, I don't see anybody being impacted. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-39 under §181.416 & §181.93 to Grant the Variance with the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall submit an as built plan to the Building Department in substantial conformity to the application plan dated 11/21/2024 by Cabco Consult prior to the Certificate of Completion being issued. 2. The garage is not to be used as a living space. 5  3. Low priority review – the ZBA Chair may sign off on compliance with all conditions through the permitting system once the project is completed. JB – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant the Variance with conditions. ZBA-24-40 Kevin Smith 22 OLD LEOMINSTER RD 6:45PM Special Permit under §181.335 of the City of Fitchburg Code seeking relief to replace a non-conforming existing garage with a new 24’ X 20’ garage on a lot that contains two front yards, encroaching upon the minimum (25-feet) front yard set-back on two sides (Carey Street and Old Leominster Road), leaving a front yard setback of approximately 2-feet from Carey Street and 11-feet from Old Leominster Road, pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential B District Map 154 Block 65 Lot 0 Present was Kevin Smith (Property Owner & Petitioner) stating that, he has owned and lived in this property for 26 years. The existing garage was constructed before modern vehicle standards, and now we're aging, we'd like to be able to park our vehicles in the garage instead of next to it. So, we're proposing to rebuild a 20 by 24 garage, on the exact same footprint of the existing garage. Which is non-conforming evidently, and only can fit in is the motorcycle. CT - The plan you submitted depicts a diagonally slashed structure which is the proposed new garage. KS - The existing garage is actually four (4) feet out into the property line of the road, where the house was built before the road was built. Then the road isn't really used a lot, except for the residents who live there. CT - The proposed garage will be set back at least be two feet into your property line, off the road line. – KS – Correct CT - You're still going to use the existing parking area that's marked pavement – KS – Yes CT - On both sides? – KS - I have a truck with a plow, so I park it over there CT - Are you using this as a single family home? – KS - Yes. CT - You're attached to public water and sewer. – KS - Correct. CT - Will the garage have any electric connection? – KS - Yes. CT - Will it have water or plumbing running out to it? – KS - No. CT - Is there going to be any space above the garage – KS - No, just probably some storage CT - Is there going to be a full floor height above the garage? - No CT - Is it going to be pitched roof, and mimic the style of the existing house? – KS - I don't know if we'll be able to match the house, but we'll see what we can do. CT - Are the garage doors going to be facing Carey Street directly? – KS - Correct. CT - I noticed that you have a substantial slope downwards in the back of your property, towards Old Leominster Rd. So, the topography goes down, would be there a new retaining wall in order to construct this garage. – KS – No, not that I am aware off CT - The property is pretty flat where the garage is going to be, but the new garage is going to extend back a lot further than that, I believe. The yard drops quite a bit in the back. – KS - It's still another 10-feet before it drops. CT - That's not what I saw in my visit, and my concern is that you probably need some engineering done to make sure that the retaining wall is safe, sound and secure for the activity that you're going to conduct there. Are you going to have space for anything other than parking of the cars in the garage? – KS - Trash containers and some tools CT – Going through the Special Permit criteria, tell me why the garage you're going to build isn’t substantially more detrimental that the existing garage to your neighbors? – KS – Roughly it’s going to be about the same size as the existing one that's been there for years. CT - Would you say that it's going to be improved by the new garage? Is it going to be easier or safer to back-up? – KS - It will be, because the garage will be set back further off the street, so it should be easier to look around. 6  CT - Is there any person present or remote who would like to ask a question or make a comment on this matter? None Mr. Talbot – No questions BG - I understand the doors will be facing Carey Street, and currently the door faces applicant’s house. Therefore, I view this as an improvement to the area. MM - Only one concern with regards to the special permit, if we look at the new proposed garage you have parking on the left and right. You have a unique piece of pie so now that is going to be a garage; will the parking on the left will go away? For a public safety issue. – KS - I'd like to keep it. CT - What is your timeline for completion of this project, when would you begin? – KS – Once permits are issued and we start working. I'd say two months Max to complete that. Board Deliberation: Mr. Talbot and Mr. Gallagher – Agree that this as an improvement to the area. MM - Certainly meets the criteria under 181.335; here it’s actually lessening the non-conformity to some extent in some areas. The applicant has mentioned that he's aesthetically going to tie in the architecture with the house as best he can. So, aesthetically it'll be an improvement, and it will provide better access into the garage and better usefulness. CT - I agree with the comments that this is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure, and in fact is an improvement because it sets the structure back by 6-feet onto applicant’s property. It will be an improved view for any driver for traffic purposes and be he would be able to enter and exit with greater safety. This is an odd property because it has 2-front yards on Carey St. and Old Leominster Road, and this very nicely reduces the encroachment or the nonconformity on Carey Street. It does actually increase the nonconformity on old Leominster Rd. because you're closer to that side of the property. Despite that, it's an overall improvement of the way everything lies overall on the property. I would be in favor of approving. MM - Motion on the affirmative on ZBA-24-40 under §181.416 & §181.94 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: 1. The garage design and construction to be consistent with the architectural character of the existing dwelling. 2. Not be used as a dwelling space and shall not contain a full building story above the area for vehicle storage. 3. Construction vehicles shall be kept off the street during construction. 4. An as built plan shall be submitted to the Building Department conforming to the plan dated December 4th, 2024 by Haley Ward prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 5. Low priority review – the ZBA Chair may sign off on compliance with all conditions through the permitting system once the project is completed. JB – Motion Seconded. Voted 5–0 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions. ZBA-25-1 Eric Quintana 48 CULLEY ST 7:00PM Special Permit under §181.313D12 of the City of Fitchburg Code to conduct an automotive repair facility changing business ownership (previously Brian’s Auto Repair) pursuant to §181.94 located in the Neighborhood Business District Map 33 Block 37 Lot 0. (Review of property owner’s delinquent taxpayer status under Section 120-21 et seq.) Present were Eric Quintana and Jarijue Garcia (Business Owner/Petitioner) and David Cormier Sr. (Property Owner) stating, 7 CT – So, there are a couple of issues that need to be resolved on this property. We have a City Ordinance in §120-21B; and it states that all of the licensing authorities, including this board, may deny, suspend, and revoke any request for a permit, which is carried out or exercised on or about the real estate, the owner of which is a delinquent taxpayer under our ordinance, §120-20. That’s any person who has neglected or refused to pay property taxes for not less than a 12-month period. Mr. Cormier was identified on the delinquent taxpayer list issued by the Treasurer, indicating non- payment of taxes for at least 12-months. We know this is not the applicant; but still there are certain things that we require in order to proceed on a permit. Our ordinance requires that, before proceeding with any permit, the delinquent taxpayer issue must be resolved. A payment agreement with the Treasurer, if reached, must be submitted for board review. Once accepted, the delinquent status may be waived. A 14-day notice, including to the Treasurer, is required before a hearing on this matter can be held. In addition, there is a longstanding issue regarding the true ownership of the property. Efforts to resolve this dispute with City Departments prior to the meeting have not yielded a satisfactory response. I have asked those city departments to continue to try to resolve this issue of ownership. It is not within the purview of this Board to decide what the payment agreement is and I do know that there have been ongoing negotiations, to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I would like the parties to continue to try to resolve these two issues, ownership and reaching agreement on the delinquent taxpayer status. I particularly noted that issue when I put the notice out, of what we were going to be discussing tonight. Until these two issues are resolved, I'd like to have a continuance under a mutual agreement to the March meeting. If those two issues have been resolved then, we can proceed to hear the application substantially. If not, we're going to have to take a vote on whether or not to continue or to deny it because of the ownership or the taxpayer status. CT – Is there anyone present or remote that would like to make a comment on this application? None MM - What's the delinquent tax amount? – CT - $78,847.70, I know there was a payment made, prior this meeting, but the balance remains unresolved. JB – The property is an eyesore, cluttered with trash, junk, unregistered cars, old pallets, tires, and other debris both in front of and behind the building. I'm not willing to vote on approving any business operations on the property until substantial cleanup is completed. – Mr. Cormier – It's all cleaned out. CT - We have one comment from the Board of Health; recommend no permit to be issued until the property is cleaned of all litter, rubbish, tires, car parts and all items as ordered from an inspection on December 26, 2024. MM – Agreed Mr. Byrne, it needs a substantial cleanup. CT - As a Board Member, I have gone by the property few times before the meeting and there's activity going on, in the property. So, I don’t look favorably upon operation of a business without approved permitting. Motion in the affirmative to Conduct a hearing regarding the status of delinquent taxpayer under Section 120-22B. Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Conduct a Hearing regarding the Status of Delinquent Taxpayer under Fitchburg Code §120-21. 8  After further discussion, a second motion was made: JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-25-1 under §181.313D12 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on this matter to March 11th, 2025. Motion Seconded Vote 5 – 0 to Grant a Continuance on this matter to March 11, 2025 ZBA-24-38 Bryan Wiebold 0 AIRPORT RD 7:15PM Continuance: Special Permit under §181.313 of the City of Fitchburg Code to open a contractor’s yard business on a currently vacant lot pursuant to §181.94 located in the Industrial District Map 142 Lot 10 Block 0 CT - We had held an issue hearing in January 14, 2025, on this matter. We received a communication from the applicant sent to the mayor's office, building commissioner and Mercedes, on January 15th, which was a day or two after the hearing, expressing their feelings and decision to not move forward with our special permit application for a contractor’s yard. The applicant left with the feeling that the special permit would come with conditions that would make operations nearly impossible for us; please see exhibit “A” CT – So, I am going to take this as a request from the applicant for leave to withdraw without prejudice. CS - Is there any person present or remote who would like to speak on this matter please raise your hand? None CT - Mr. Commissioner, any comment. – FZ - No, at the last hearing a lot of people came out in favor of this, including the abutters, Mayor, city councilor and others. I'm saddened as our other city officials who spent a lot of time working on getting this as complete as possible, that it turned out this way. JB - I didn't receive those letters until I walked in, and I was looking at a contractor’s yard, not a metal recycling plant. – FZ - If you read, the definition under the city's zoning ordinance (page 160). This falls within that definition. CT - My comment on this, I appreciated that the mayor sent out the initial recommendation letter; it was very well addressed to the special permit criteria. Also, the various departments did undertake to answer as many of the questions that they could before the meeting. I'm sorry that the applicant didn't continue the process further, and it could have had an improvement in the process. I know now that the city had been in discussions with this gentleman since September, and neither of the Boards that this would need to go through were involved in any of those discussions. When there is a project of importance to the city, and there are Boards which are part of the process needed to deal with the project, it is helpful to the applicant to understand what the Board would be looking at, and helpful for the Boards to have some prior knowledge of what is coming before us. It’s helpful so the applicant doesn't arrive thinking that that particular use is an easy approval in our process, and could be resolved in a single evening's meeting. That's a use which had a lot of potential for effects on surrounding properties, and also benefits because the projection was 20 to 30 employees. That would have been very nice for the city, and I was looking forward to working that out with the applicant. But when an applicant goes in with that expectation of a rubber stamp, sometimes the applicant comes here and gets frustrated because they didn't come and see what they were expecting to see. The Board is going through its job of due diligence and asking questions to make sure that the project is a good fit, so I think in the future maybe a more integrated involvement of the Boards at an earlier stage, particularly if it's a project of that much importance to the City, would better serve the City and the applicant. 9 JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-38 to Grant Leave to Withdraw without prejudice, as petitioner requested. BG - Motion Seconded Vote 4–1 to Grant Leave to Withdraw without prejudice, as requested (MM) 7. MISCELLANEOUS ● - Proposed amendments to fee schedule in Rules & Regs. CT – Review and proposal for modifying fee structure for appeals, variances, and special permits. The current fee for each matter its $300.00, this fee has remained unchanged for over 20-years. Despite increased costs associated with processing, including advertising, publication, and occasionally recording expenses at the Registry of Deeds. Which help future property owners understand the history and restrictions on the property they're buying. Particularly, when we have an appeal and variance application, so that’s what we had discuss at the last time. Therefore, the proposal would be to modify our fees. We can do that by a rule change for a variance or appeal. We will need a city ordinance change for a special permit. So, my suggestion has been that while the City Council now sets fees, that the ordinance be changed so that the board sets its fee for special permit as it does everything else, but that we undertake certain notifications and a delay before enacting on it. That would include notification to the Mayor, City Council etc. However, a suggested increase to a $400.00 fee across the board; in addition to the base fee, advertising costs should be added. Consideration for a per-unit fee was mentioned, particularly for projects involving as large number of dwelling units, as raised by Mr. Talbot. Exhibit “A” (a comparative chart) been produced to you today of what other municipalities do. Example: Leominster's charges $250 plus cost for notification and abutter list. Worcester has variability with fees, ranging from $330 for small-scale matters to $600 for large-scale matters. For instance, there are a number of municipalities that will charge a fee for continuing a matter, that's an extension or a modification of the original special permit or decision. Therefore, I wanted to present you this tonight, entertain any discussion or questions, but not any particular vote. MM - What's typical Cost to notice? – Zoning Secretary – Newspaper charges us per “word” and mailing cost, especially in densely populated areas with extensive abutter lists. CT – Based on the latter’s advertisement meeting, where we had 3-new cases it would be somewhere around $130. Per case. MM – How it will work if the applicant incurs the advertisement cost? – CT - From my experience, some towns obtain an estimate from the newspaper and then bill the applicant. Other communities set a standard flat fee to avoid extra administrative steps. MM - We don't want to add steps, right. So, suggesting that a flat fee might be preferable. – CT – Agree, and look at the average cost, from time to time and setting a flat fee. MM - Isn't that why we pay taxes though? – CT – No, this is a fee for service. BG - I noticed Worcester has two separate fees ($330 and $600); I think that's interesting because we obviously look, and take a lot more involvement on some applications. That's something that we need to consider. - CT - Yes, there are some projects that are very involved. I noted that there was one town that charged $550 for an appeal of the Building Commissioner's decision, which is above their special permit or variance fee. Also, there are properties that get additionally involved because of the scale of the project, but if I were to pick something because of the time we need to spend with it, I would pick appeals over anything else and secondarily variances. 10 CT – The proposal is to keep this discussion on the agenda for the next meeting, Board members are encouraged to review and submit suggestions regarding and appropriated fee structure change. There is a need to balance the fee adjustments against the actual administrative workload and costs incurred by the Board. 8. ADJOURNMENT 11