Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK Jun 11 2025 8:52 am ZONING Board of APPEALS 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY MARCH 11, 2025 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: As every month, the Board received its routine monthly updates on ZBA- 2023-08 Petition (1341 Rindge Rd). In addition, several recordings and photos concerning standing water on the property were submitted by an abutter. The property owner has requested that this matter be added to the agenda for the next ZBA meeting, which is scheduled for April 8th. Although the abutter’s communications have been received, the issue will not be heard at tonight’s meeting. The recordings, photos, and all related documentation will be distributed to the board members and will be reviewed at the April the 8th meeting. 3. ATTENDANCE: Christine Tree (Chair), Michael McLaughlin (Vice-Chair), Joseph Byrne (Clerk), Brian Gallagher & Robert Talbot 4. ABSENT: James Reynolds 5. Hearings: Started at 6:04 PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-23-27 Mark Brideau 0 COBBLER DR 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313E5 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to open a contractor’s yard and erect a 4000SF steel building to be used for storage pursuant to §181.94 located in the Industrial District Map 114R Block 10 Lot 1B Present was Mark Brideau, (Property owner and permit holder) stating, CT - We are here for a review of the project, and compliance with the special permit conditions. I had driven by the project and noted the project’s attention to detail, completion and the quality of fulfilled. Generally, the Permit Holder had always kept his other business and project well maintained. However, the property is currently being used to store a massive amount of cars, which I understand to be for a dealership. This use deviates from the approved special permit, which did not authorize dealership-type operation. Having spoken with the building commissioner on this issue, and I appreciate you had submitted a zoning determination application to address the matter. There is some discussion on whether it falls under the Planning Board or the Zoning Board, but at any rate a special permit is required to conduct that use. Despite the application for a zoning determination, the fact remains that the property is being used for an unapproved purpose, and therefore, you are in violation of the zoning ordinance at this time. CT - Are you going to continue the contractors yard in any sense or is it being abandoned and you're moving to the different use as you indicated to the building commissioner? – MB – The contractor’s yard tenant, who was there for 16-17 years, left in December after an agreement was signed last year. When I got approval to build the building in October, and most of the work was completed other than the final plumbing, electrical and the interior office, I put the project on hold, due to uncertainty about tenants. We completed what was necessary on the outside, and started to look for some potential tenants. Currently, I have three, but nobody has signed a lease yet. We are in the process on the letter of intent with Building commissioner and trying to move forward. In the meantime, a car dealership has placed vehicles on the property and exceeding the original intent of using only a small piece of vacant land in the back for 50 to 100 cars. CT - Not 200 Plus, you probably have two acres of completely cars, right? – MB – It was not the intent. The Building commissioner’s response was received, but I'm not sure if planning approval is what I need. The issue I have is that I don't know if I have to ask for the three potential tenants, and it's all a juggling act to see who would be allowed. One of interested tenants is a cannabis manufacturing facility that would take over the building. CT – That proposed cannabis manufacturing would require approval from both the city and the Cannabis Commission, which could take 3 to 6 month, and mostly at the state level. – MB – Understand, I am juggling now trying to find a tenant that fits both city’s and land’s requirements. CT - As far as the car dealership is concerned. - MB - This could be temporary. I can run over to the planning office tomorrow if necessary to, at least initiate that step to see. CT - I'm not sure that would even be allowed because it's an industrial zone, and evidently, a car dealership is not allowed. - MB - I don't think they want to sell cars there. CT – The property is in an industrial zone, and a car dealership is not permitted without a use variance. – MB – Originally, I advocated for the dealership to use the space for parking and cleaning cars before returning them to their lot, and because I needed somebody in there. CT - Understanding the future use is a little bit uncertain; at least one is currently active on the property. I encourage you to file your application so that that use can be legal. A commercial parking lot and a cannabis business, both are handled through the planning Board. You may be able to proceed on both permits through the same board. Whatever it is, please don't start conducting a use on the land, until you have the permission for it. I encourage you to go tomorrow, put in the special permit application for the Planning Board or the zoning board, so permission can be obtained for the use that’s currently being conducted on the property. The current special permit was granted on November 14th, 2023, the project was to be completed within 12 months of filing with the city clerk. Have you received the final certificate of completion from the city? – MB - No CT – At the end of last year, the state enacted the Permit Extension Act. Which automatically extends any special permits in existence during a certain period of time for two years, and your permit falls within that. Therefore, I would note that the project completion deadline is extended, but this board will not grant additional time beyond that. At this point, I don't think you have any completed review of the site plan from the Planning Board, but I would encourage you to look at that. Replacement of the existing chain-link fence along Cobbler Dr. was required to be replaced and has been completed. Construction is to be in conformity with the plan submitted and dated September 5th, 2023. Which includes Asphalt pavement leading to the building, stated that the remainder of the ground was to be treated with rubble and gravel. I noticed the drainage retention pond was built on the side. Exterior storage to be located near to the rear property line and that is not in compliance because it is not being used as permitted (Contractor’s yard), instead, it’s fully occupied by parked cars, which was not the intended use. Due to these discrepancies, another review is needed to assess the current use and determine the necessary actions. – MB – Agreed. CT - Is there any person present or remote who would like to make a comment or ask a question on this matter? None RT - Has the dealership indicated a long term rent or just temporary? – MB - Three-year lease to start, along with three-year extensions. RT – So, it's worth going to the process of planning for that. MM - Is it a local dealership? – MB - Yes, it's McGovern over the Route 12. MM – Agreed on the continuance to give Mr. Brideau the opportunity to sort out the changes he may need. 2 CT – Necessarily, I don't have any objection to the current use, it may in fact be a lesser impact than what was approved for. We want to give you time to at least make some headway on the new permitting process. Likely it will be a couple months before we know any outcome from the planning board, so four (4) months, so that would be July’s meeting, MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-27 under §181.313E5 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance of the Review to July 8th, 2025 continuing conditions and adding condition #9 as follows: 1. Project to be completed within 12 months of the date the decision is filed with the City Clerk. 2. All planning Board conditions of the Site Plan, if approved, to be incorporated as a condition of this Special Permit. 3. The existing chain link fence bordering Cobbler Drive shall be replaced and the new chain link fence kept in good repair. ( Satisfied March 11, 2025) 4. Construction shall be in conformity with the plan submitted and dated September 5th, 2023. 5. Landscaping to be installed along the chain link fence bordering Cobbler Drive. 6. Exterior storage to be located near to the rear property line. 7. Site to be kept clean and free of construction debris during construction. 8. Review – July 8th, 2025 (Amended March 11, 2025) 9. Permit Holder to apply for any Zoning relief required for the current conducting use on the property within 14 days of the Review meeting. (Added March 11, 2025) RT – Motion Seconded Voted 50 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to July 8, 2025 with conditions ZBA-24-26 Olanrewaju Oyaronbi 76 SUMMER ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313D3 of the Fitchburg Code to operate a Class D Driving School pursuant to §181.94 located in the Neighborhood Business District (NB) Map 70 Block 13 Lot 0 The Permit Holder was not present at the hearing. CT – On this special permit review to operate a Class D driving school, we had received an e-mail from the permit holder stating, “I received the meeting notice and an unavoidable event occurred that will make me unavailable. Please reschedule the meeting for the month of April 2025.” I also want to note that the certificate of occupancy permit has been issued for this permit holder, so they should be up and operating or at least there's nothing from the city barring them from doing so. CT - Is there any person present or remote who wanted to ask a question or make a comment on this matter? None JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-26 under §181.313D3 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review as permit holder requested to April 8th, 2025 with all existing conditions to remain as follows: 1. When conducting on-site parking instruction to driving students, the Petitioner shall set apart and mark out with safety cones an area appropriate in size and location on the lot to conduct driver parking instruction and safeguard the public from unintentional personal or property damage by the student drivers. 2. Petitioner shall to use more than three vehicles for instruction of student drivers. 3  3. Petitioner shall request a review hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals if there are more than five employees for submission of a parking plan for the Premises and consideration of modification and addition of special permit conditions. 4. Review Date – April 8, 2025. (Continued from March 11, 2025) BG – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to April 8th, 2025 ZBA-24-30 Toufic Boulos 672-678 WATER ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.313D11&12 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to transfer a prior Special Permit for the business use as a small Motor Vehicle Sale and grant an additional use as a motor vehicle repair shop due to business ownership change pursuant to §181.94 located in the Neighborhood Business District (NB) Map 109 Block 35 Lot A Present were Toufic Boulos, of Leominster (Property and Business owners) stating, CT - On September 10th, 2024 this Board approved the special permit to operate the auto sales and repairs business, and the repair aspect being new to this location. As part of the approval, we set a number of conditions on the property. Can you give us a summary of when did you open and how have operations been going? – TB - We're not yet 100% open, currently, we're open Monday to Friday. 9:00 to 5:00. Saturday, 9:00 to 2:00. We recently received our dealer plate from the state, and now we have started putting cars on sale to officially launch the business. CT - Going through the conditions on your special permit, please respond on whether you're in compliance or not. First condition is that the business ownership must stay with Auto Pro Sales and Service LLC, Toufic and Teddy Boulos. What is the entity that owns the business currently. - TB - Auto Pro Sales and Service LLC, joint with my brother CT - #2, No outside storage of auto parts, materials and equipment, salvage junk, or inoperable vehicles is permitted, except for vehicles actively marketed for sale. These vehicles may remain on-site for up to 90 days before being classified as salvage, junk or inoperable. During the site visit, it was observed that auto parts were being stored outside. On the left-hand side of the building, there was a pile of auto parts on the ground next to the container. Please remove the auto parts; as they're not permitted to be stored outside. – TB – Okay, sometimes they arrive early, and we temporarily leave them outside for the company to pick them up within a day or two. CT - You should find another way to handle it, and a container that's accessible might be a good option. If you find a more creative way to do that, that's fine too. – TB – How about a box. CT – Yes, that would be very similar to a dumpster. #3, no drop-off or charity donation boxes on site, and none was noted during the visit. #4, maximum number of vehicles permitted on-site for sale or repair is 22. Upon counting, it was noted that there is at least one vehicle over the limit. You have a couple vehicles inside as well, so please be mindful of the total number of vehicles on- site. You've obtained your dealers license; however, you still need to assess how operations will function when customers are coming on site. Is the repair shop open yet? – TB – Yes CT - How long has that been in operation? – TB – We started in the first week of January. CT - #5: No banners, pennants or unprofessional signage; and didn't see any. #6: Hours of operation, we covered. #7: Not to be operated as a public or private nuisance. #8: Parking according to the 2015 plan. After speaking with the Building Commissioner, it was noted that there is no record of a site plan review application being submitted following the special permit proceeding. As a result, you may receive a request to apply for a site plan review due to the change of ownership. #9: Parking is to be striped within six months of the commencement of operation of the business. Since it has not yet been six months, I would encourage you to apply for and obtain 4 the site plan review before striping the parking lot. This way, the striping only needs to be done once. – TB - We bought all the materials, but the cold weather has prevented us to do it. CT - #10: The dumpster to be moved to the rear of the building on the property and screened from the public view. You are not currently in compliance because it is out on the side, and the condition was to put it behind the building. – TB - We'll do that. CT - #11: The storage container and all junk or inoperable vehicles to be removed from the property prior to the start of operations; noticed that storage container has been removed. #12: All trash and debris on the premises, including on the slope behind the building to be removed and the rear of the property to be kept clean of trash and debris and be well maintained. Now, that the snow is gone, if somebody can go down there and pick up the trash. #13: The applicant shall address any light pollution generated by the exterior lighting it proposes to install with the planning board through a site plan review. You had proposed installing tall lights, and this should be addressed during the review by the planning board. If these lights are directed improperly, they could affect nearby residents and become a nuisance. #14: Any conditions of the site plan review approval shall be incorporated as a condition of the special permit. Therefore, you still have some outstanding items to be complete on this list. – TB - The dumpster doesn't fit behind the building due to the slope, but we are working on placing it on the left side of the building. Trash service is provided every Monday, and we will move it to the front for collection. CT – Do you need that size? It’s pretty big. – TB - That's the smallest I can get MM - Is there any reason you can't install a fence around it to screen it? – TB – Okay CT - Is there any person present or remote who would like to make a comment or ask a question on this case? None Mr. Byrne & Mr. Gallagher - No questions. RT - Regarding the dumpster and outside storage of car parts, if you install two large gates where the dumpster is located, that would help conceal both the parts and the dumpster. I think that would be a simple and effective solution without making it too complicated. MM – I agree with the dumpster suggestion. Any efforts you can make to improve the appearance of the site and contribute to the overall look of the City would be greatly appreciated. CT - I'd like to set a follow-up review at a time when you’ve had the opportunity to make progress on the outstanding items. July might be a reasonable timeframe, given that we need to confirm whether the planning board needs to approve certain aspects. However, in the meantime, nothing’s preventing you from continuing to operate the business. If you complete the necessary improvements earlier and would like to return before July meeting date, you can contact us at least a month in advance so we can schedule you for the following meeting. At this time, we'll set your review for July 8th, 2025. JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-30 under §181.313D11&12 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to July 8th, 2025 continuing all conditions as follow: 1. Sunset Clause – Special Permit shall expire or terminate upon the transfer or sale of the business or change of ownership from Auto Pro Sales and Service, LLC, Toufic- Maroun Boulos, or Tedy Boulos. 2. No outside storage of auto parts materials and equipment, or salvage, junk or inoperable vehicles, except for vehicles held and actively marketed for sale, which may be kept on site for up to 90-days before being deemed a salvage, junk or inoperable vehicle. 3. No drop-off charitable donation boxes may be kept on site. (Satisfied on 3/11/25) 4. Maximum number of vehicles stored on site for sale or repair is twenty-two (22) vehicles. 5  5. No banners, pennants or unprofessional signage. 6. Hours of operation Monday through Friday 8:00 to 6:30, Saturday 8:00 to 3:00 and Sundays closed. 7. The business shall not be operated as a public or private nuisance. 8. Parking to be according to the plan submitted by Petitioner dated March 25th, 2015 by R. Wilson and Associates. 9. Parking to be striped within six months of the commencement of operation of the business. 10. Dumpster to be moved to the rear of the building on the property and screened from public view. 11. The storage container and all junk or inoperable vehicles to be removed from the property prior to the commencement of operations of the business. 12. All trash and debris on the premises including on the slope behind the building to be removed and the rear of the property kept clean of trash and debris and be well maintained. 13. The applicant shall address any light pollution generated by the exterior lighting it proposes to install with the Planning Board through a site plan review. 14. Any conditions of the site plan review approval shall be incorporated as a condition of the Special Permit. 15. Review Date – July 8th, 2025. (Amended March 11, 2025) BG – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to July 8th, 2025. ZBA-24-34 Carlos Martins 28 HEYWOOD ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit §181.336 of the Fitchburg Code to reinstate a vacant/abandoned nonconforming structure and/or use from a Group Home and under §181.333 to alter a nonconforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose by Special Permit pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential C (RC) District Map 95 Block 100 Lot 0 Present were Carlos Martins (of Ashby) and Paulo De Morais (Woburn) both property owners stating, CT - On November 12th, 2024 a special permit was granted, with limited conditions set by board. Additionally a special permit from the Planning Board is still needed for multifamily operation and site plan review. However, I noticed that no application has been submitted to the Planning Board yet. – CM - We had a delay issue due to our surveyor, who has been unavailable due to cancer diagnosed. It's been harder to find someone; but we have collected all the necessary paperwork and are ready for submission. CT – Similar to the applicant who opened the meeting, the Permit Extension Act grants an automatic two-year extension for the project. The board is open to delaying the review to allow more time for progress. – CM - We need to get our job done because, we have been paying bills for over two years and three months, is already too long. CT – Observed that demolition work had begun inside the building. – CM – Only the copper piping has been removed so far. MM – Did you pull the proper permits? – CM – The Building Commissioner confirmed that removing copper pipes does not require a permit. CT – So, we only had two conditions on, but neither applies yet since the site has not been put to use. – CM – Yes CT – During my site visit I noticed a few broken windows. – CM – Yes, we have cameras installed CT - Please make sure they're boarded and secure, so it doesn’t become an attractive nuisance for people to go into. – CM - Okay. 6 CT - Is there any person present or remote who would like to make a comment or ask a question on this matter? None Mr. Byrne and Mr. Talbot – No question BG - When is the new surveyor scheduled, and what’s the work that is required – CM - Nothing structural BG – Does the water system, such as drainage, need to be addressed. – CM – Probably, but we want to focus on the interior work first. MM - When I heard you had removed all the copper, I'm concerned about water into the building. Were the building sprinkle. – CM - No, water has been shut off. CT - Given the current status, I would be looking to schedule the review in September, to allow time for project progress. JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-34 under §181.336, §181.333 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to September 9th, 2025, continuing all conditions as follows: 1. All parking requirements shall be satisfied by parking spaces located on-site or on an abutting lot, owned by permit holder or over which the permit holder holds a permanent easement for the parking spaces, running with the premises and with the burdened lot and recorded at the Registry of Deeds. 2. The applicant shall provide at least the minimum number of parking spaces required under §181.512 by the number of units approved by the Planning Board, plus an additional five spaces for guests, employees and agents. 3. Review Date – July 9th, 2025 (amended March 11, 2025) MM – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to July 9th, 2025 ZBA-24-9 Amico Realty, LLC 59-63 WHALON ST 6:00PM Review of a 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 CT - On this case, unfortunately, although this project was approved, I believe through this Board and the Planning Board, we had received the following e-mail: Hi Mercedes, per our conversation on Friday, we will no longer be pursuing this project at this time. If you could please take our project off the agenda, that would be appreciated; from Michael Amico. CT - For whatever reason this project is not moving forward. Especially, when this was a variance proceeding, and I do not wish to revoke the variance at this time. If there was some reason related to finances, logistics, and they decide to undertake the project in the future. I would like them to be able to do so. The Permit Extension Act automatically gives plus two-years; therefore, at this time, I would like to put this for Board Member discussion. Variance originally granted in April 9th, 2024, and I'd like to schedule this for the April 2026 meeting. At which time we will review it again, and if still not moving forward, then we can consider it either revoked or expired. MM - I think it's a great idea. CT – Is anyone present or remote who want to make a comment or ask questions on this case? None JB - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-9 under §181.313E3 & §181.93 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to April 14th, 2026, continuing all conditions as follows: 7  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 – April 14, 2026 (Amended 3/11/2025) BG – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to April 14, 2026. 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 CT – This matter has been brought before us a number of times, and the review has been rescheduled due to the permit holder requested an extension or failing to appear at the last three meetings. At the January meeting, we were awaiting feedback from two city departments regarding whether the 2017 parking plan required modifications due to changes in the traffic pattern, particularly at the entrance and egress on Boulder Dr. Despite no communication from the permit holder, I was able to reach Lieutenant Killeen from the traffic department yesterday. Lieutenant Killeen, who recently took over from Sergeant Boudreau after his retirement, conducted a site visit to assess the entrance and exit. He did not raise any concerns, but wanted to ensure that Ryan Coleen from the City Engineering Department also reviewed and confirmed the findings. However, according to his review, there were no concerns regarding the traffic flow. Regardless, there is still an outstanding condition requiring the parking lot to be striped, which has not yet been completed. Additionally, we have a permit holder who once again failed to appear before us and has not contacted us to request a continuance. CT - Is anyone person present or remote who would like to make a comment or ask a question? CT - I'd like to hear feedback from other Board Members on how they would like to proceed with this case. MM – We had the opportunity to observe the site throughout the winter and assess how the permit holder has been operating. He has done a great job maintaining the area, keeping it clear and organized. Initially, he requested to retain the existing parking, originally used by Montouri. Given the expansive nature of the parking lot and his operations thus far, I don't see any issues. RT – Since he no longer wants to proceed on the originally submitted plan, how do we get him relief from it? – CT - He submitted the Mount Wachusett plan, but now he wants to use a different plan. When he applied for the permit, he provided the most recent plan he had, but he no longer 8 wished to follow that parking layout. We need an official plan to approve. He can request a modification of the decision with a new plan, but he must submit that new plan. CT – I encourage the permit holder to take one of those two actions to move forward. So, we could continue this to April. RT – The special permit was granted with condition accepting that the currently striped parking plan be accepted. Do we need a technical plan if it's a pre-existing layout that has been in place for years, or could it be waived? – CT - The board could vote to waive the necessity of a plan submission or vote to waive the striping requirement. It would be a modification, as we can't approve a plan that we don't have, but we could vote to waive that requirement entirely if the board agrees. RT – So, could we eliminate Condition #6? – CT – Yes, and I'm assuming you would like to do that. RT - I would. – CT - Why don't we propose an amendment and take a vote on it? RT – Make a motion to amend Special Permit conditions striping Condition #6. Discussion on the proposed motion: MM - I would like to see the applicant present, and discuss this amendment while he's present to have some feedback. JB – Agreed with Mr. McLaughlin, and I'd like to see what the applicant has to say. CT - I'm not completely opposed, and the statement from the traffic department makes me much more at ease about that entrance on Boulder Drive, which is really what my main concern. However, I also would like to hear from the permit holder. CT – Mr. Talbot, would you be willing to table the motion to the next meeting, and see the applicant? – RT - Yes. MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-40 under §181.313D12 & §181.394 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to April 8th, 2025, continuing all conditions as follows: 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. 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 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 – April 8, 2025 (modified 3/11/2025) RT – Motion seconded. Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to April 8, 2025. 9 ZBA-25-1 Eric Quintana 48 CULLEY ST 7:00PM Continued: 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. (Hearing on property owner’s delinquent taxpayer status under Section 120-21 et seq.) Present were Eric Quintana (Petitioner), Jarijue Garcia (Business Co-Owner) and David J. Cormier (Property Owner) stating, CT – This is a continuance from February’s meeting, at which time we opened the hearing and discussed the necessary steps regarding this case. Upon review of the City of Fitchburg ordinances, specifically §120-21(A), the licensing authorities are granted the authority to deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse renewal or transfer of any license or permit if the applicant or associated property owner is a delinquent taxpayer. Furthermore, §120-21(B) permits the licensing authorities to take the same actions against any license or permit related to activity on or about real estate owned by a delinquent taxpayer. In exercising this authority, the licensing board is required to provide proper notice to both the delinquent taxpayer and the applicant. This Board has historically declined to hear applications until delinquent taxpayer matters have been resolved. Accordingly, notice was issued via public statement, meeting agenda, and formal letters to the involved parties and to the Treasurer’s Office. The Treasurer has provided the updated list of delinquent taxpayers. As of January 23, 2025, Mr. Cormier appears as #23 on the list, owing $78,847.70 in back taxes. In 2018, the City obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on the property in question due to unpaid taxes. However, on February 12, 2025, the City’s tax attorneys vacated that judgment, a decision I personally do not agree with. There's a recent Supreme Court case that may influence how tax lien foreclosures are handled, and it raises valid concerns, particularly in cases such as this where taxes have been unpaid since 2010. For the record, Mr. Cormier has previously entered into multiple payment agreements with the city in an effort to resolve outstanding tax liabilities: First agreement: January 9th, 2017, outstanding balance $51,138.52. Terms: $6000 down payment and $1000 monthly installments. You made the initial down payment and one subsequent monthly payment was made. No further payments were received after March 2nd, 2017. Second agreement - March 23rd, 2018; outstanding $51,016.33. Both parties agreed to revise the agreement again on January 31st, 2019. Mr. Cormier made a down payment of $2800 on March 23rd, 2018, but no additional payments were made until February 11th, 2019. Payments were inconsistent and did not meet the agreed upon $1000 monthly amount. Third agreement - January 3rd, 2020, outstanding balance $64,031.38. No down payment; monthly payments of no less than $1500 starting February 2nd, 2020. Payments were made sporadically through 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, but not always for the agreed upon monthly amount. Only one payment was made in 2024, dated May 3rd, 2024. Additionally, a 4th payment agreement was proposed with the City Treasurer, acknowledging that a payment had been made toward the sewer charges and property taxes. Despite these multiple agreements, payments have been irregular and insufficient to fulfill the terms set forth in each arrangement. As of today’s date, there is no active payment agreement in place between Mr. Cormier and the City. I would like to clarify that this Board is not privy to all discussions that may have occurred between Mr. Cormier and the Treasurer’s Office, and we are unaware if there were any specific reasons for the delay in enforcement or action, particularly as our current Treasurer assumed the role in July. It is our understanding that the current proposal under discussion with the Treasurer is for Mr. Cormier to sell a property he owns at 214 Lincoln Street. There’s reportedly a purchase 10 and sale agreement in place, with the closing scheduled to occur on May 2nd. – Mr. Cormier - I believe I have until May 5th to make the payment. CT – I would like to note for the record that there's currently no MLS listing for your property on any realtor website. – DC – Yes CT - I've looked at the Registry of Deeds, and as of now, there has been no change to the deed yet. While you’ve stated that the sale has not yet taken place, it is also important to clarify that there is no written agreement signed by either party at this time. I state this because, under the City Ordinance, the definition of a delinquent taxpayer does allows someone who has entered into an agreement that's been accepted by the city to not be considered a delinquent taxpayer so long as they continue to make the payments. Before discussion, I wanted board members be aware of this factual information. – DC - All the paperwork to get a payment arrangement is confusing, I wanted to pay, because it's 13% interest every day. Therefore, I decided to sell the house and tried to get this payment off my shoulders. CT – It's not on the MLS system, which is the public listing system for sale of real estate, contains no listing for that property. I think it's very compassionate and appropriate for the city to reach out and help people to get back on their feet, and reaching a good resolution, but you've had three opportunities. Myself I would only be looking at full payment of these taxes as a resolution of the matter, due to the fact that a fourth agreement does not seem appropriate. JB - Mr. Quintana, have you given Mr. Cormier any money, since we started this particular project to pay his taxes? - EQ - Yes. CT - How much have you given him? – DC – The deposit check, the 1st, for $4800, and the monthly payment of the rent. CT - How much is the rent? – EQ - $2400 Mr. Talbot – Had no questions for the applicant BG - What is the name of the realtor? – DC – Don’t remember and I don’t have the paperwork with me. They are supposed to be coming next week to take pictures of the inside of the property. BG - Why would they do that if you already have a purchase and sales agreement. – DC – Don’t know BG – Do you understand the process of selling the house? - DC - I guess they market MM - Have you already signed the purchase and sales agreement with a prospective buyer? – DC – Yes MM – Noted that according to Chapter 120, without a written agreement, the board cannot approve the application. So, I would ask the board allow the applicant to withdraw the application without prejudice and reapply once the property taxes are resolved. RT - If the board wishes to approve the special permit, it could be granted with the condition that it would not become active or used until all outstanding taxes are fully paid. – CT – Yes, a conditional approval could be considered, but there’s a concern due to the property’s history dating back to 2010, including unresolved issues with outstanding water and sewer charges. EQ – In order to proceed with the application, we had to pay $8000 to survey the property. We agreed to reduce the monthly rent by $500 to help offset that amount. CT – Multiple opportunities had been given to the property owner to make repayments, but there has been a consistent failure to comply. – DC - I don't want to sell the building, and I don't want them to get kicked out. Board’s Discussion: CT - My assessment on this matter, I have a concern regarding Mr. Cormier, a lack of confidence that taxes would be paid if any relief were granted. We heard a number of inconsistencies in the property owner’s statements, including varying claims about realtor involvement, the existence of a purchase and sales agreement, the number of bedrooms in the unit. I think he may only make a few initial payments and then stop once the Special Permit is granted. Which is unfair to both the 11 tenants and the city. I would like for an alternative resolution, possibly through a recommendation from the solicitor, but made it clear that I'm not willing to approve the permit until all property taxes are paid. JB – Currently, there’s a financial impact on the city due to tax delinquencies, a citywide deficit and cuts resulting from inadequate revenue collection. The delinquent taxpayer list, it seems that $6,000,665.41 is owed to the city. Therefore, I agreed with Atty. Tree that no considerations should be given on this application until all property taxes are fully paid, nothing, that it would be unfair otherwise. MM - I have zero confidence in this situation. The city has dropped the ball on this taxpayer tremendously, strictly looking at the city bylaws. If I look at §120-21, which authorizes the City of Fitchburg to deny applications in such cases. At this point there is no agreement in place, and therefore my recommendation for the board is to either: Allow the applicant to withdraw the application without prejudice, or deny the application, allowing the applicant to come back once the situation is resolved. CT – Two actions needed to be taken by the Board: Number one, a motion regarding the resolution on the delinquent taxpayer status. Number two, if a leave to withdraw is granted, the board should consider allowing Mr. Quintana to reapply within 12-months and waive the application fee, provided a resolution is reached. Therefore, proposing that the board make a formal motion finding that the property owner, David J Cormier Sr, is a delinquent taxpayer. MM – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-25-1, Finding that the property owner, David J. Cormier Sr. is a delinquent taxpayer. Therefore, no special permit or other licensing relief shall be granted by the Board until Mr. Cormier is no longer a delinquent taxpayer. JB – Motion Seconded Voted 5 – 0 Unanimously approved the Finding that David J. Cormier Sr. is a delinquent taxpayer under §120-21. Second motion was made: MM - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-25-1 under §181.313D12 & §181.94 to Grant the applicant to Leave to Withdraw without prejudice, and to waive the reapplication fee if the same applicant submits the same application for the same property within 12-months, contingent on resolution of the tax issue. BG – Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant the Leave to Withdraw without prejudice ZBA-25-2 Geoffrey Glifort 34 GRANITE ST 7:15PM Special Permit under §181.332 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance to convert the use of a non- conforming 3-family structure into a 4-family dwelling without increasing the structure’s footprint pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential C District Map 82 Block 133 Lot 0 Present were Attorney Carboni (office is in Fitchburg), and owner/applicant Geoffrey Glifort, (Boston) stating, CT - In this request, I want to note that a similar request was submitted in 2021 by a different owner. Which was denied, with a vote of three in favor and two against, which constituted a negative decision under the Board’s rules. Under state statue and the zoning ordinance, a two-year bar applies to any matter that receives a negative vote, prohibiting reconsideration during that time. However, as more than two years have passed, the Board is permitted to reconsider this current application as a new matter. 12 Atty. Carbone, in January of last year Mr. Glifort purchased the property, but it was already configured as a four-family dwelling. However, currently, only three of the units are rented. It’s our understanding that the city allows for two parking spaces per unit. CT - I recall this property, noting that the former owner had requested a conversion to a four- family dwelling while in the midst of renovations, but that request was denied at the time. Was the property advertised as a four-family? – GG- I don’t recall the specific listing, but the bedroom counts were accurate. After touring the property, I engaged in a purchase agreement, and as soon as we did the closing, I started the process. I am trying to make it clear that it wasn’t me who installed the 4th kitchen and bath, these were pre-existing when I acquired the property. CT – Conducting a site visit noticed that the property has only three electric and gas meters. – GG – Correct CT – Noticed that the fourth electric meter is for the house account, and also observed that the property has four sets of trash bins. – GG - Those were there when I took ownership. CT – Was there a tenant in the fourth unit at the time that you took it over. – GG – It was for one month, they moved out and I never backfilled the unit. CT – Looking at the prior decision, this was a vacant property and the last known city record classified it as a three-family dwelling, not a four-family. The parking plan, dated August 6, 2021, was reviewed, and it was noted that the applicant had used the same plan submitted by the prior owner – GG – Right CT - I know that there had been some issues regarding compliance with parking space dimensions. – Atty. Carbone - Currently are eight (8) parking spaces, and the city ordinance requires two per unit. CT - There were two other concerns raised by the board, which were a narrow driveway, and at that point in time the corner lot was vacant. Which was thought that a four family might be more appropriate if there was some green space added to the property in the form of acquiring that lot, but it seems that it was sold in September. – GG – Yes, they reached out to me to let me know they planned sounds like, a single family with like an ADU attached. CT - These are all 2-bedroom units. – GG – Correct CT - One bath – GG - Yes. CT - Do you know the square footage of each unit is? – GG - Roughly 800 SF. CT - Is there any reason why you couldn't apply it as an ADU? – Atty. Carbone - I think it's too big, the size limitation measurement ,the maximum size is 900 square feet, or 1/2 of the principal dwelling unit, whatever is smaller. CT - Is there any person present who would like to make a comment or ask a question? Karen Peters of Fitchburg, I know he is a new owner, but it was non-conforming property with a very small yard and the cars are going to be parked on the side of the building. It's well-kept building, and if they're putting another house at the corner of Salem and Granite, that's more people living in the area. We have the nice Habitat for Humanity at the other corner, and I don't know if we can have that many extra people in this small area of Fitchburg. As you know Spruce has multiple multi families, I own a two family and am looking at having more people on that street. JB - Are you going to be living in one of the apartments? – GG - No. RT – Board’s question: When you look at the table of uses, states that a four family is allowed by special permit by the planning board. Where do we come into play? – CT - This is a preexisting nonconforming structure, now being modified for a different purpose. It's nonconforming due to the setback requirements, which is why the matter is before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The planning board could allow a multi family use only if all dimensional requirements are met. 13 BG - The 4th unit, because there are three electrical and gas meters. Of course, there's one house meter for the smoke detectors. How would the 4th unit be heated? – GG - They're sharing it with one of the other units, so they don't pay for the utilities. So, that's how it's conveyed. BG – So, you pay for the utilities. – GG - Correct. BG - Looks as the snow banks are using the 2-North parking spots, because I counted six parking spots. – GG – It must have been MM - I was on the board at the time we gave this particular project some deep thought, and it was I believe a 2-family, which we allowed it to be extended to a three-family. A city records report showed that the last use was a three-family, and there was an original request by the applicant to make it as four. Due to the parking issues, which included snow removal, and the density. The board voted negative, the applicant was upset at the time and had gone to the mayor and did it anyway. If you look at the purpose and intent of Chapter 181, some of the main bullet points are to lessen congestion in the streets. Prevent overcrowding of land. So, if we have limited parking, at present we don't have an issue, but if we increase the density now. We're going to have visitors parking on the street, in addition to that the tax base will not increase, but we will have added services, trash removal, which is a cost to the city. Therefore, I have some concerns about it. CT – Noted, the Planning Department, Chantelle Fleck, gave a detailed analysis on this application. Please see exhibit “A” Atty. Carbone – Mr. Glifort is going out of his way, trying to correct the mistakes of the former owner. Hope the Board could consider that, and the parking would be sufficient to meet City requirements. CT - Would you be willing to convert the 4th unit to a one bedroom? – GG - Yes. CT – During discussion, it was noted that, based on conversations with the building Commissioner, the property’s sprinkler system needs to be modified. Due to the presence of an unauthorized (illegal) fourth unit, the Building Commissioner intends to conduct an inspection of the property to assess the current conditions. If the 4th unit is a one-bedroom, it would require only one parking space, which may alleviate prior concerns raised by Mr. McLaughlin. Agree with Mr. Byrne about the previous owner being denied a similar request, yet still moving forward with renovations regardless. Something is wrong with our enforcement, as permits may be issued, renovations completed outside of approvals, and yet certificates of occupancy are still being granted afterward. MM - We made a well thought out good decision, and now we're here to reverse it. BG - I didn't participate in the 2021, case, so I have no foundation to stand on as to where we started with it. RT - I also don't have much experience with this property, but those of you that have a past experience of this applicant’s application. It's unfortunate, and now this is the second case tonight where somebody else has tainted the applicant’s application. CT - We did request from the Building Commissioner to have an inspection, and if the 4th unit were granted a plan about making the sprinkler system compliant. We could continue this matter to another meeting, or we can take a vote. MM – Is this sprinklered, currently? CT - I believe it's not sufficient for a reason. CT - I'd like to understand the interior after the building commissioner’s inspection. I'd like to continue this hearing to April 8th meeting, and have the applicant contact the building commissioner to conduct an inspection prior to that hearing. JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-25-2 under §181.332 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the hearing to April 8, 2025. RT – Motion Seconded Vote 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the hearing to April 8, 2025 14 6. MISCELLANEOUS ● - Proposed amendments to fee schedule in Rules & Regs. ●Continuation of Remote Attendance after expiration of COVID-era rules 7. ADJOURNMENT 15