Zoning Board of Appeals

FITCHBURG CITY CLERK Apr 03 9:08 am ZONING Board of APPEALS 718 Main Street – Suite 201B Fitchburg, MA 01420 MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY APRIL 8, 2025 Legislative Building at 700 Main Street. Note: This was a Hybrid Meeting, broadcasting and recording by FATV. 1. Call to Order Christine Tree 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL 3. Communication: CT: We have on the schedule for this evening the 1341 Ridge Rd matter, over the past few months, this matter has not been on the agenda, but a number of people have either appeared or sent comments. I do want to ensure everybody who wishes to make a comment on, will have a full opportunity to do so. We did receive a request on the 34 Granite St. (ZBA-25-) to be called promptly at 7:00PM due to a medical issue, we will be calling that matter, and waiting until the board's action on that matter is concluded to continue. And I ask that everybody be understanding about that interruption. 4. ATTENDANCE: Christine Tree (Chair), Joseph Byrne (Clerk), Brian Gallagher, Robert Talbot & James Reynolds 2. ABSENT: Michael McLaughlin (Vice-Chair) 3. Hearings: Started at 6:04 PM CASE No. APPLICANT PROPERTY TIME ZBA-2023-12 Mina Ghobrial 219 HIGHLAND AVE 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.94 of the City of Fitchburg Code to reinstate the variety convenience store in the existing pizza store, requesting a modification to hours of operation under the Special Permit, pursuant to §181.313 located in the Residential B District Map 22 Block 16 Lot 0 CT. Now on this matter, we received a request from the permit holder for continuance, which I'm going to read into the record: Hi, Mercedes. I'm so sorry. I need to ask for another time because I have a family emergency today, so I'm not going to be able to go to the hearing. Mercedes asked, what's the time frame you are comfortable with? next month, May thirteenth, or longer than that? The response was you can do longer as much as you can, please. Mercedes stated, I will pass your message, but having a time frame is always helpful. CT: Is anybody here in public to speak on that case? Is any remote attendee who wish to speak on this or case, please raise your hand? None CT: To remind the board that this was a granted special permit, and the outstanding condition that has not been fulfilled; is the submission of an engineered parking plan. We did allow a modification to hours of operation, a number of months ago. The issue is that, the convenience store can't be opened until that engineered parking plan has been submitted, because that is the outstanding condition. CT: Does any board member has a comment? If not, a suggested rescheduling date. Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Reynolds - Had no comments. CT: Due to the outstanding parking plan condition, that it hasn't been submitted, and I don't think they've made any attempt to do so. I am going to suggest to put this matter out to the September meeting. BG - Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23- under §181.94 & §181.313 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to September 9th, 2025, continuing conditions as follow: 1. No on-site service after 11:00PM in compliance with the ABCC. 2. Petitioner shall not operate as a package store, so-called, for the sale of alcohol to be consumed off-premises. 3. Any conditions from the License Commission as to the on-site beer and wine pouring license shall be incorporated into the special permit conditions. 4. Dumpster to be moved to the rear corner so as not to impede the flow of traffic through the parking lot. (satisfied) 5. Hours of Operation 11:00AM – 9:00PM Sunday through Thursday, 11:00AM – 11:00PM Friday and Saturday. (Modified 9/10/2024) 6. Parking spaces to be striped and directional arrows painted on the pavement indicating that traffic would enter the parking lot from Pearl Street and proceed one-way around the building exiting onto Highland Avenue. (Satisfied) 7. Special Permit decision to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recorded Special Permit to be provided to the Board prior to the review meeting. (Satisfied) 8. The certificate of occupancy for the convenience store use shall not be issue until the parking plan has been submitted to the ZBA depicting 8-dimensionally compliance parking spaces and the ZBA has held that this condition has been satisfied 9. Review – September 9th 2025. JB - Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to September 9th, 2025 ZBA-23-37 Carrol Caires 167 CANTON ST 6:00PM Review of a Special Permit under §181.33 of the City of Fitchburg Code to build a 3-family townhouse style to replace a preexisting nonconforming structure with the same use post fire pursuant to §181.94 located in the Residential C District Map 141 Block 45 Lot 0 Present was Paulo Caires (Contractor and Co-owner) stating that, project is about 90% to be complete now. Wishing to get it done by the end of the month, and hoping to be rescheduled for completion on the next meeting. Experienced some delays over the winter, and I couldn't show up at the last meeting, but we are getting close to finish our project. CT: Have you had to make any changes from the conditions or the plan? – PC - No. CT: From your point of view, you've built it according to plan? – PC - Yes. CT: Wanted to note that the project it looks wonderful, it is a vast improvement over the building that was there previously. Now, reviewing the conditions: #1, the dumpster not to be overfilled and emptied regularly. #2, the site to be kept clean of trash, construction debris, and overgrowth during construction. #3, all construction vehicles to be parked off street and not interfere with the flow of traffic during construction. Were you able to do that? – PC – Yes CT: There's a condition relative to the demolition of the old building that we don't need to worry about anymore. You've stated that you've constructed substantially according to the plan stated 11/29/2023. There's no more than 3 dwelling units constructed on the property? – PC - Correct. CT: No more than 3 bedrooms per unit? – PC - Correct. CT: We did not grant you any additional dimensional relief, which you must meet the setbacks depicted on the plan when the as built plan is submitted at the end of the project. – PC - I have updated that. CT: All the exterior decks are to be comprised of engineered building materials rather than pressure treated lumber except for the structural elements. Are the decks constructed except for the handrails and the balustrades? – PC - And the PVC that goes over the whole thing, usually, leave that for the very last. CT: Any conditions imposed by the planning board through its site plan approval shall be incorporated as a condition of the special permit. And you said you've complied with the site plan? – PC - Yes CT: No certificate of occupancy to be issued until the board has issued a finding that all special permit conditions have been met. Finally, condition that the permit will expire if, the conditions have not been approved within 24 months of the date of the vote. So, the original approval was on 01/09/2024, which give you until 01/09/2026 to make sure you've complied with all conditions. – PC - Okay CT: Is there anyone present or virtual who would like to make a comment or ask a question on this matter? Please raise your hand. None Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Byrne & Mr. Talbot - No questions at this time. BG: I did site visit today, and I was impressed with the work has been done. The applicant took me on a tour of the building, and it's a first class all the way. Very much in favor of it. CT: Mr. commissioner, has the as built plan been submitted? – Mr. Commissioner – Yes, there is a thread on the, OpenGov system by you. What was written is: Paulo, the right-side yard setback is slightly under what was approved, 16.8 feet versus rather than the 16.47 feet. But as a practical matter, you're still within the allowed side yard setback of 15 feet. The front and back are compliant, and I agree that the foundation is substantially compliant with the approved plan. CT: You want to have the project completed before the final review and approval happens. I don't want to bring you back twice, so I'm going to suggest to schedule this for June 10, 2025. – PC – A month is okay. CT: That would be May 13, so you understand why it would be a better idea to schedule for June 10, rather than May and tell us that you have a little bit more to do? – PC – Actually, I'm thinking to get it done the end of this month. Which it gives me an extra two weeks. I'm pretty confident I can get it done. Which waiting to June, I won't be able to get it rented until July now. CT: So, will you appear at the next May meeting, whether or not the building is done? In person. – PC - Yes. CT: There is a comment from a board member, and because we need to make sure all our communications are open during open meeting. The question was, if it presently occupied? – PC - No. JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23- under §181.33 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to May 13, 2025 continuing conditions as follow: 1. Dumpster not to be overfilled and emptied regularly 2. Site to be kept clean of trash, construction debris and overgrowth during construction. 3. All construction vehicles shall be parked off-street and shall not interfere with the flow of traffic during the construction 4. Permit holder shall make the building secure until demolished, including boarding all of entrances and openings in the existing structure until demolition. (Satisfied) 5. Building shall be secured within 30 days. (Satisfied) 6. To be constructed substantially according to the plans by John Karavolas dated 11/29/2023 and submitted with the application, including the exterior depictions. 7. No more than three dwellings units and no more than three bedrooms per unit. 8. No additional dimensional relief is granted beyond the depiction in the plans 9. All exterior decks shall be comprised of engineered building materials rather than pressure treated. 10. Any conditions imposed by the Planning Board through site plan approval to be incorporated as a condition of this Special Permit. 11. No Certificate of Occupancy can be issued until the Zoning Board of Appeals has issued a finding that all special permit conditions have been met. 12. Special Permit will expire and terminate if not all conditions have been and approved by the ZBA within 24-months of the date of the vote.  13. The applicant may schedule an earlier review before the board by request to the chair and representation that all special permit conditions have been met. 14. Review date – May 13, 2025 (amended April 08, 2025) 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 Present was Olanrewaju Oyaronbi (Permit Holder) stating that, CT: We had issued a special permit to operate a driving school at the Medical Building, on Summer Street. There were few conditions on, so we were looking for an update after you had started operations. Have you started operations yet? – OO - Yes. CT: What was the date that you started? – OO - November 5, 2024. CT: How many students have you acquired? – OO - About 15. CT: Do you have any employees other than yourself? – OO – No. CT: During your permit application, we discussed the fact that you would be doing most of the teaching either in the class room, or the car instruction on the roadways and neighborhoods. – OO - Yes. CT: Of course, its regulated through the state licensure. There would be a limited amount of parking instruction taking place, within the parking lot of that building. – OO – Correct. CT: Is that what you are currently doing? – OO – Yes, and as it was instructed. I’ve also acquired the safety caution cones to demarcate whenever I’m doing instructions within the car park. CT: Are you conducting the instruction on the left, or the right-hand side of the building? – OO - At the upper left side. CT: Has there been any objection from other tenants, or the landlord to you? – OO - As a matter of fact, they’ve got me students. CT: Have you run into any concerns expressed to you, for any part of the business that you are running, either, the entrance and exit to the parking lot by your students, or occupying the number of parking spaces, or any kind of concern like that? – OO - No concerns whatsoever. CT: Are the 15-students in class at one point in time altogether? – OO – No, these 15-students are categorized as young, old, and middle aged. Therefore, some have a few classes, and do the road test, and move on. Currently, I’m beginning to put the in-class schedule together. For early May. CT: Do you also do the remedial education for, persons who have violated motor vehicle laws and are instructed to take a remedial class? – OO - I can do it, but I have not done any yet. CT: I’m going to review the special permit conditions, and let me know whether you’re in compliance or whether there’s been any issue. Condition #1, you’ve been doing that? – OO - Yes. I have. CT: And no student has damaged another vehicle while undergoing instruction on the property? – OO - Not at all. CT: #2, no more than 3-vehicles for instruction of student drivers? – OO – I only have one. CT: #3, you are to request a review hearing before the ZBA if you do acquire more than 5-employees for submission of a parking plan for the premises and consideration of modification and addition of special permit conditions. So, that if you are successful, and hire personnel we will need an actual parking plan. CT: Is there anyone present or virtually who would like to ask a question or make a comment on this case? None. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Talbot & Mr. Gallagher – Did have any questions. CT: I’m glad that you’ve been open and hope you’ll be very successful in your business, and to see you back when you have five or more employees. JB: Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-24-26 under §181.313D3 & §181.94 to Approved the Review, as conditions have been met and no further review will require. Subject to recall if a violation of conditions is reported. 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. 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. RT: Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Approved the Review no further review will require. CT: The next matter on our agenda is 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 (Permit Holder and Business Owner) stating, CT: As you remember, we had a concern regarding the parking plan for, your lot. The issue was whether the parking plan was appropriate, given the fact that the traffic pattern and particularly the entrance and exit, onto Boulder Drive had changed, since the date of that parking plan, which I believe was by Monty Tech. Therefore, we had asked you to, seek a review from the police department (traffic division), and from engineering as to whether or not any modification of your parking plan was required. Did you speak to either of them? – TB - I did not. CT: I want to note for the record that the applicant has been absent from a couple of recent meetings. At the last meeting, I reached out to both engineering and the police department regarding the entrance and exit at the site. I did receive a response from the police department – they conducted a site visit and concluded that no modifications were required to that entrance and exit. However, they recommended that engineering also verify this assessment. Unfortunately, I have not yet received a response from the engineering department, despite multiple attempts to contact them. I would prefer to obtain written acknowledgement from engineering confirming that no changes are necessary before the parking lot is striped, so the applicant does not need to complete that work more than once. CT: I think there are some divergent opinions on the board regarding this issue, and we will need to have a discussion before proceeding. – TB – Understand CT: Condition #7, the dumpster to be stored inside the structure or inside a screened and gated enclosure at the rear left corner of the property. At my site visit noticed the dumpster out on the right-hand side of the property, is that where you leave it out to get picked up? – TB - It was out so they could empty it. I also have a fence going up in the next couple weeks. CT: So, it will be stored on that side of the property, which we had originally discussed in the original proposal. On the left side? – TB - It will be stored inside thereafter. CT: Condition #8, the sunset clause upon transfer of ownership, and you still are the owner of the lot and the business. – TB - Yes. CT: Are you holding that under John Fritch Exhaust and Repair LLC? – TB – Yes, and while we're talking about it, I expressed this last time. If I retire or decide to sell the business, or the property. I would like to see if possible and we could get removed, the sunset clause. Based on everything I've gone through to get this up and running, I would like to have the availability and not deter somebody from being able to sell or move on; what should I do? I believe it should be easier to bring more people into the community, if they have the availability moving in, and they not having to go through a year or 2-years of zoning process, to take over a business. CT: I expressed this at the last meeting as well, during a full discussion on this issue. Motor vehicle businesses require a special permit for a reason. They have a tendency to poorly operated and can become a nuisance to the community and abutters. The purpose of the sunset clause is to ensure that whoever is operating the business at any given time is required to come before the board and is fully aware of the conditions imposed on the operation. These conditions are essentially straightforward: Do not be a nuisance or cause disruption to your neighbors. The procedure is simple: When selling or transferring your business, the buyer should come before the board to request a transfer of the special permit. This gives the new operator a public acknowledgment of the conditions tied to the permit and the responsibilities of operating within the community. This procedure helps us strike a balance between the interest of private property and business owners and the rights of community residents to live without undue disruptions. CT: I wanted to note for the records, you were granted the special permit to operate on March 12, 2024. You've been able to operate, since the Special Permit was granted. In the issue, that you been waiting for a determination on over and over. This issue is whether the parking needs to be modified, due to the change in the traffic pattern. Every time you been present, your answer is (I haven't done that) (No, I haven't asked somebody). Therefore, I would not agree the long delay is due to anything, although I'll say, I was very pleased with the police department's response last month. I do wish that we'd had a response from engineering, I've been asking since October, but from your testimony, you have not asked. TB - I'm not. CT: that's on you. – TB – No, as far as being granted to open, it was June or July. I started this last December, so it was literally 8 to 9-months before I could even open this place. I was paying over $10,000 a month to heat it, plus other bills, and I couldn't do anything with it. CT: I would suggest in the future, and I would hope that most, prospective purchasers, developers, business owners undertake, to enter into an agreement whereby, the obligation to pay rent or pay the purchase price goes through when the permitting has been allowed. Otherwise, you are not adequately protecting your own rights. And I would certainly hope that, anyone looking for that, does seek the appropriate legal counsel to do so. CT: Is there any person present, or remote who would like to ask, make a comment on this matter? None. JB: I agree and you made clear as to the sunset clause kept in the conditions. RT: Do you own the lot? – TB -Yes, I do. BG: I did site visit today, I had a tour by the land and garage owner. I want to say that, there's a great investment made in it. As far as the parking lot goes, it was very clean. He showed me where the fence and the dumpster it’s going to be. I think that, his business is a great asset to the community. Certainly, there was a similar business when Montouri was there. Deliberation: CT: I agree with Mr. Gallagher as far as your renovation of the building. However, there are two unresolve issues, I would like the board offer, any comments on. First, is there any member inclined to remove the sunset clause from the special permit? - JB: No, I do agree of any applicant challenging the board relative to cycle time, time from beginning to end; is a fair challenge. I like the protections of the sunset clause, but I also accept the challenge of, the time to move through the process. CT: I agree with Mr. Byrne, I think most of the time issue will be satisfied, once this permit holder completes. Supposedly we have another business owner come in, and simply comply with the conditions. Unless there's an issue where something has fallen into disrepair, or something along those lines. Mr. Gallagher or Mr. Talbot, do you want to, expand upon what your inclination is or why? BG: I guess I need to understand how the sunset clause works; a little bit better. If he has a potential buyer, and he's up and running, I would be okay with the sunset clause, if the new applicant would come before us and agree to all the conditions set forth. As Mr. Beauvais has, without delay, and somehow simplify the clause is what I'm saying. CT: Mr. Talbot, did you want to make any further comment or explanation? - RT: So, when somebody runs an auto repair business, and it becomes unsightly, whatever, what is our recourse with the applicant to the person that's running the garage? CT: We would not have more leeway with the landowner CT: I do take Mr. Gallagher suggestion, of a way to simplify the process, still have that new business owner acknowledge the terms and conditions. If we used both solutions, so we had responsibility for compliance with the property owner, but allow the business to transfer the special permit upon appearing before the board and acknowledging compliance with the special permit conditions. That is something that we could resolve in one meeting, which it would decrease the timing to any business purchaser. A new property purchaser would still have to come back and ask to transfer the special permit. Would you both be inclined to such a proposition? – Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Talbot - Yes. CT: Mr. Commissioner, comment on that. – FZ: I wanted to throw out a third option. What if, the chair and my office worked on a form template to be agreeable and brought in front of the board at a future meeting. Have it for this case, and any future cases. Instead of having the sunset clause condition, and having they to come back in front of the board and acknowledge it. Instead, put in a condition stating that a future owner of the business or transfer of the special permit, would have to affirmatively sign the form approved by this board and file it with the property file within my office, so that there is a recorded at the registry of deeds if you want to go to that extent. That way, there's an affirmative aspect without holding up the project to have to go for a public hearing costing, and it could achieve that same exact intent within a matter of days. - CT: It's a good thought. I'm not sure that it achieves the same end because, we get people here stating, I didn't know that I signed that. I didn't read it, etcetera. Commissioner: In that case, we have what they signed, and it's recorded. So, then my office can take whatever enforcement is necessary to enforce those special permit conditions. - I'm glad to hear that. I want to determine whether or not we're going to have one more review or not, if we are, we can put some time and thought into a written version, of this discussion. If not, we're going to need to come to a conclusion tonight. Second issue is the modification of the parking plan, whether the parking plan is appropriate given the change in traffic pattern. I'd like to hear anybody else's comment on a resolution of that issue. JR: Well, it seems we need an input from engineering and applicant would be appreciated. JB: Agreed with Mr. Reynolds, so let's wait for engineer response. Meanwhile, I think he'll have to striped it, as it is. RT: I'd like to remove condition #6. BG: Certainly, I’m happy with the police report, and I have a level of confidence in that. I know the parking lot, worked perfectly for Montouri, and his business is very much the same. If it was a big issue for engineering, they would have contacted us by now. CT: I prefer to have an actual full answer on this, but we have been asking for this since October. And we've been instructed the applicant to ask for it since last summer, at least. I would like to bring this matter to a conclusion, and don’t have to bring the applicant back for multiple more times. Given that we have a plan, that was approved and submitted with the application. As long as the permit holder stripes according to plan, which is one of the existing conditions (number 6). Mr. Talbot, you want to remove the condition entirely? or want to explain. - RT: I understand, the approve striping plan does not work, for his business. CT: But we don't have a plan that depicts the parking layout. Due to the applicant has not plan been drawn, and it had been over a year since then. Mr. Commissioner: I wanted to note, that the mayor, reached out to the engineering department (DPW commissioner) with his response - He wrote, there's supposed to be a no left turn sign at the curb cut onto Boulder and another one up on the main street side. – CT - I appreciate it, that helps me, tremendously, because at a minimum, we can approve the plan from 2017 for Mount Wachusett without concern about the traffic division. BG: I agree with the applicant. It's a totally different use. He's using it as it was used previously with Montouri, not in a teaching environment. So, it maybe there were safety things for students and crosswalks and stuff. TB: I think we've agreed in the past that there's plenty of parking there. It's not so much of a space issue. CT: So, I think, we're going to need one more meeting, because if you want me to vote out on the removal of paragraph #6 separately, we can do that, Mr. Talbot. But I think the proposition is to lay it back at the feet of the applicant and say you're welcome to stripe according to the plan that you submitted, or you're welcome to submit a new plan that we can accept, and then you're going to stripe it. At the next review meeting, we can address the issue of the sunset clause and hold a vote on that. I would normally expect that it would take two-months to have you draw a plan or stripe the parking lot, So I would probably be looking to continue to June 10. RT: I'd like to make a motion to remove condition #6 of the special permit. JR: Seconded. CT: Any discussion on the motion? Do you want it striped or not striped? RJ: We shouldn't be asking to do a money tech plan. At the same time though, it should be a safety, no left turn here or there. As a common sense. BG: I would be in favor of removing #6 also, if the applicant is willing to strike it, the parking lot. CT: Mr. Talbot would you take a modification of the motion that the condition read parking spaces to be striped, and no left turn painted on the parking lot for the Boulder Drive entrance. RT: Yes. JR: Seconded the motion as modified. Voted 5–0 to parking spaces to be striped and no left turn painted on the parking lot for the Boulder Drive entrance. JB: Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-23-40 under §181.313D12 & §181.94 to Grant a continuance on the Review to June 10, 2025, continuing conditions as follow: 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: PM, seven days per week. 5. Professional signage only. 6. Parking spaces to be striped according to the September 1st, 2017 proposed parking layout. Applicant shall have no left turn painted on the parking lot for the Boulder Drive entrance. (modified 4/08/2025) 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 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 – June 10th, 2025 (modified 4/08/2025) RT: Motion Seconded. Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance on the Review to June 10, 2025. ZBA-25-2 Geoffrey Glifort 34 GRANITE ST 7:00PM Continued Hearing: 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 I understand there was some last-minute communication between you and the building department earlier today. Attorney Carboni submitted a request for reasonable accommodation, specifically requesting that the petition at 7:00PM. However, please note that we did not amend the agenda on Friday to reflect a continuance request to April 24, At the time, we were also concerned about the possibility of not having a quorum for tonight’s meeting. As of this evening, we are proceeding with only four boad members, as Mr. Reynolds was not present at the last meeting and is therefore ineligible to vote on this matter. While we are honoring your request to be heard tonight, that does not change the procedural requirements. The board will first consider a motion to continue the hearing to April 24. If the motion to continue fails, we will proceed with your hearing tonight. If the motion passes, the matter will be continued to April 24. JB: Motion on ZBA-25-2 to continue this matter to April 24, 2025. No Seconded was given. Therefore, motion does not pass or get voted on because we do not have a second, and we're going to continue with the hearing at this point in time. CT: This matter had appeared before us in 2021, and been denied. It's my understanding that the, prior applicant and prior owner illegally modified and built the fourth unit, and then sold it to you. At the time that you bought it, the fourth unit was occupied, but you did not renew the tenant's occupancy once that tenant left. You then applied for the special permit modification, at the last meeting, we asked that the building commissioner be permitted to conduct an inspection to see what happened and what was needed as far as the building went. Mister commissioner, you conducted that inspection? - Mr. Commissioner: Yes, and Mr. Gallagher joined me at that inspection as well. for the board's information, the building is built as a 3-family. What was the original intent, and the approval was that the Second Floor was going to be use as a 1-unit. Currently, there's plumbing, electrical and sprinkler system is designed for a 3-family. The only thing that's designed for a four, is the fire alarm system because it wouldn't make a difference for a three or a four in the way it's laid out. At some point, someone moved a couple of doors to turn the Second floor into two separate units, all done without permits. If this board does allow this to become a 4-family, which in reality, it looks like a good fit for a 4-family. The owner, Mr. Clifford, has acknowledged that there are multiple upgrades and updates that he would need to make, in order to make it illegal 4-family under the building code. Including, upgrading the sprinkler system to a 13-R, which currently it’s a 13-D and it may require additional heads, hydraulic calculations and engineering on that. He would have to decide whether he wants to separate the 2-units, electrical and plumbing and, or if he wants to pay for the tenants' electricity and hot water. CT: I noted that the parking, spaces were undersized. They were 9 by 16 instead of 9 by 18. – Mr. Commissioner: Yes. CT: How about the, maneuvering aisle? Is it compliant, or is it undersized as well? – Mr. Commissioner: I believe it's undersized. I don't recall the exact dimension, but I also wanted to note that there is an additional spot up at the end to the far right. It could serve as an additional space or future snow storage. CT: What would you expect for a time line for the work to be completed for the code required upgrades that you discussed? – Mr. Commissioner: It will depend on his contractors and engineers. I would say at least 3-months to make whatever upgrades because he has to coordinate with tenants. He has to get flow tests for the water on the sprinkler system, and a design the sprinkler system. CT: At the last meeting, we discussed whether you were willing to have that fourth unit be a 1 bedroom, and you indicated that you would. Is that still the case? – GG - Applicant: The more I thought about that, and if you look at the units, they're kind of shotgun style and layout wise. The cost wise, obviously, is a big burden financially, and I would ask that it just be recognized as it is today, if that would be possible. CT: Is any member of the public or remote here today who would like to make a comment or ask a question on this matter? Mayor Samantha M. Squailia: I wrote a letter in support of this special permit application, to express my support for the petition to convert the use of the nonconforming 3-family structure at 34 Granite Street into a 4-family dwelling without increasing the structure's footprint pursuant to §181.94 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance. Please see exhibit “A” JB: The board was bamboozled by the prior owner who converted this dwelling without our knowledge. In fact, we said not to. We can't impact the current owner because of that. However, as long as the applicant is willing to meet all the building code, with the fire suppression and the other necessary requirements, I would be in favor voting for this particular action. RT: I agree with Mr. Byrne, and I trust Felix's opinion on it. BG: I went out with Felix and we toured the building, I noted that the building currently lends itself perfectly to a fourth unit. Structure is clean inside, good quality of work and a willingness by the investor to make the proper upgrades in terms of the sprinkler system, and electric. I'm strongly in favor of it. CT: For myself, this is a case frankly, print presents a dilemma to me because we have an illegal unit that was built, not by the applicant, but it was built. The granting of the petition can be seen as encouragement to people, to simply do it anyway and then come and ask for forgiveness later on. Particularly, when the prior owner has experienced 0 fines, 0 penalties, and sold this property as a profit, with a fourth tenant in the unit. I do not, want to create a bad precedent that will encourage other people to violate the law, because what this board does as a minimum, is that we follow the rule of law. If you cross the line into a 4-family, and 2-bedrooms or less for each unit, the parking requirement becomes not 2-spaces per unit, but one and a half. So that the required number of six parking spaces. I'd, prefer to see the parking reconfigured with compliantly sized spaces, striped, because it was not striping. I'd rather have 6 compliant spaces than eight noncompliant spaces. If the board allows this, I would like to see as a condition of the special permit: Reconfiguration, to compliance sized parking spaces, striping with an as built, compliance with all upgrades necessary to a 4-unit building prior to occupancy. Mr. Byrne, Mr. Talbot - Agree with the conditions JB: Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-25-2 under §181.332 & §181.94 to Approve the Special Permit with the following conditions, and allowing the applicant to request an earlier review to represent that the conditions are completed. 1. Permit holder to perform all building, sanitary and fire code required upgrades, including but not limited to sprinkler system and laundry utility charges prior to occupancy of the fourth unit. 2. Permit holder to submit a modified parking plan depicting a minimum of six compliance parking spaces, and measuring the maneuvering aisle. With space allocated for trash, recycling and snow removal. 3. Property owner annually request and have performed an inspection of all units as required by code. 4. The parking spaces be permanently striped according to the modified plan. 5. Review Date – September 9th, 2025 RT: Motion Seconded Voted 4–0 to Approve the Special Permit with conditions ZBA-2023-08 JoAnne Hamberg 1341 RINDGE RD 6:00PM Review of the Special Permit under §181.94 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance issued after remand from the Worcester Superior Court Zoning appeal, CA No. 2385CV00600 – A, by consent of all parties, and by Order of the Court, to the Board of Appeals, dated September 27, 2023, pursuant to §181.332 located in the Rural Residential District Map MBL 69R Block 8 Lot 0 Present was JoAnne Hamberg of Lunenburg (Property Owner and Applicant) stating, I'm pleased to share that we've made significant progress since our last update. I've been sending you monthly updates, as was stated at our last meeting in September. The revised community building plans have been fully approved by the state and City Building Department. After a collective effort between the Fitchburg Building Department, our engineers Dillis and Roy, and the State modular program, we successfully addressed all code questions and accessibility concerns for the permitting requirements. As of March 21st, we received our final approval to move forward, and the new modular community building has officially been ordered. Actually, I can show you a letter so you can see that I have ordered it, and a 25% deposit was wired to Pleasant Valley Homes. We've coordinated with all our external contractors and engineers, so the site prep has already begun. Vandel Construction has been out on the site cleaning it up, and prepping the foundation. As soon that’s ready Samsung Concrete can install the footings in the foundation. Currently, they're scheduled for April 28th, if weather permitting. The building is expected to arrive in approximately 6-weeks depends on windows, due to a delay with getting windows when they build these module homes. We also recorded the amended order of condition with the Registry of Deeds and submitted all necessary documents to the Conservation Commission. The drainage inspection by municipal local engineers has been going on regularly, and I believe you received the letter from Nick to finalize this condition. We're excited to move on to the next phase and look forward to delivering a beautiful, accessible space to service the residents at Woodland Estates. I know, at the last meeting you had said that you would not allow any more occupancy permits, on the last two homes. Which they were inspected and signed off back in September of last year, and I'm asking if you would consider to grant those occupancy permits. So, the new owners can move in, due to the building is going to be started very soon and everything is now in place. CT – I want to clarify with you that the letter from Pleasant Valley Homes, indicating that the order has been submitted as April 7th. – JH - Well, I ordered it and requested to get a letter, which has to go through channels and it took a few days to get it to me. CT - If I'm counting out six weeks from the order date, or from the delivery date, given the possibly of window issue. What is the expected delivery date? – JH - End of May, the building should be here. CT - For the records we receive a letter from Ryan Colleen, Assistant City Engineer, addressing the Woodland States drainage system concern. Please see exhibit “A” CT - What is your expected date of completion for the community building? – JH – Usually, six weeks after we'll be able to have it, so mid-July if not sooner. CT - Is there any member of the public or remote would like to make a public comment today? Paula Valente of Lunenburg, real estate broker for real Estate Exchange. I am the current buyer’s agent for the two properties currently, on deposit. I'm respectfully request the issuance of occupancy permits for the properties located at 171 and 175 Nijal Court, the buyers Mike and Donna Brainier and Michael and Virginia Howden. They have encountered various challenges delaying their ability to move into their new homes, I would like to provide an overview of their situations and kindly ask for your consideration in granting the necessary permits. Mike and Donna Romania are currently living in an apartment while waiting to move into their newly built home, they were approved for a loan to purchase the property and paid a $400.00 appraisal fee to the lender which its valid for 120-days. During this time, they have diligently committed required paperwork monthly to keep the loan updated; unfortunately, the 120-day window for the appraisal has expired and now they have to pay an additional $400.00 for a new appraisal. Moreover, they have been required to continue paying rent on their apartment instead of putting those funds toward their mortgage, which unit was completed in September of 2024 Michael and Virginia Howden, currently living in the in-law portion of their property in Leominster, where they have had their home on deposits since January of 2025. The main part of the house is vacant as they have been living in the in large unit, their buyers are eager to move in and occupy entirely. Which is why the Howdens are hoping to finalize the sale, and move into their new home as soon as possible. 171 Nijal Court being the last home built in Woodland Estate, has become especially meaningful to the Howdens. They do not want to lose the opportunity to be part of this wonderful neighborhood, as they believe the Woodland Estates is an ideal community for them. Given these circumstances, both sets of buyers, are facing significant delays in financial strain as they continue to wait for necessary occupancy permits. We respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the issuance of these permits for 171 and 175 Nijal Court at your earliest convenience, to allow all families to move forward with their plans, avoid further hardship, and begin settling into their new homes. Councilor Fleming, (ward-5) seeing we're talking about occupancy permits, and new people coming into the neighborhood. I would like to add that any new resident purchasing in this neighborhood, should began with the courtesy of knowing the complicated history with this development. No one should be blindsided, I'm not sure if these new buyers were given the history of this development. I'm here tonight not just as the Ward-5 Councilor for Woodland Estates residents, but also for the leaders of this community. It is crucial we ensure that every single criteria set by this developer has been thoroughly met, before we consider issuing a new occupancy permits. We have navigated a long and often challenging path. And it's imperative that we hold the developer accountable to their obligations, and I'd like to add that how many times has the developer come forward and said we've got everything, it's going to be done by such and such a date and then all of a sudden, we have these massive complications that stop the project. I hope we get in writing that everything is going to be done by the days provided, because at this point, I cannot hold the word of this developer any longer. Virginia Howden, my husband's and I started to look for a new home, have looked in New Hampshire along with a friend. After extensively looked in New Hampshire, we decided to look around where we live. We have two dogs, making it challenge to find a place that is pet friendly. On the google search were few places pet friendly, and this was one of them. We went to had a look, and we fell in love with it. Now, in response to Council Fleming, I have gone through three new house builds from start to finish, and I totally understand the backlogs, delays, construction issues, we know it's not a cookie cutter. We put in an offer on this the next day, and two weeks later we put our house on the market. We had four offers on our property, so my house became sold with a closing date of the 15th of this month. Because of the fact of the occupancy permit, it has caused a lot of stress for us, we're both seniors. It has caused a lot of issues, due to the fact we have people who want to buy it, but it's difficult for me to move out. I have nowhere to go with my two dogs, it's not easy for move to a motel or a hotel while this building comes along. So, I am at your mercy, I have until April 15th, to decide whether or not I'm leaving my home and losing my buyer. Therefore, I'm asking you to release the permits for these two homes, because we believe in JoAnne and we believe that this place is going to be built. My husband and I we both are in the 70s, and this will be our last home. Mayor Squiala, I'd like to lend my support allowing the occupancy permits for the units, the residents and the community they have there is great. What I hear anecdotally from the residents generally, almost overwhelmingly rather is that they enjoy this community. I heard from numerous residents having these delays over the last year, I believe that we are moving forward on satisfying the requirements as it comes to the community. Therefore, I would like to see us move forward with allowing people to move into these homes and occupy these units. Peter Berger of Fitchburg, always have lived in Fitchburg. I've heard of Woodland Estates from a friend years ago, then over the years, I investigated it. Three years from the time I first talked to JoAnne I purchased mine in July 2020. After I purchased it, she was selling seven houses a year. It looked like the proactive was going to be completed in no time, I was aware of the Planning Board meeting of April 22, wanted the project done, shut down in six months due to the board ruled against the arbiters. The city got involved, and basically all been happened, it's delaying the completion of the project. In my opinion, the way the project was going, if it was left alone, it could possibly have been done and finished in 2023. In addition, I've been watching the drainage, and I've only seen water twice. Once was the snow melt, and the other time was at Saint Patrick's Day. Both times were a couple inches of water. communication that I received. On this matter. CT – An email communication was received in this matter, from Kathy Deschamps in November stating, I was approached by Joanne on November 18th regarding purchasing some land that three of the sheds from the new trailers are on. She indicated that there was a mistake in the previous land markers, were not correct; almost 8 feet of difference. I have asked to have the team doing the survey put flags on, so I can clearly understand where my land starts. I think she should do it for all the abutters, so we all know as we wrap up the development, she's preparing a purchase agreement. She also now understands my concerns, why I requested planting of trees. She agreed to plant evergreen trees or shrubs in the spring, but I want both items noted its provisions. An update made in March 24th stating, wanted to let you know that we are still working through the request to purchase some land where they built sheds and a deck on. The current proposal is not acceptable, JoAnne is having it updated. CT - We also had received a communication from MaryEllen Christian, who forwarded some photos of the standing water that has been discussed and was consistent with the March date for snow melt. – JH - Everything is marked but we worked it out between us and we should be all set. JB: Expressed frustration with the prolonged 20-year development timeline. Emphasized that the delay originated from the lack of a construction end date due to a past oversight by Planning or Zoning Board. Noted that occupancy permits were not to be granted until the promised Community Building was completed. Expressed sympathy for the Howdens (recent buyers) but reiterated commitment to enforce the occupancy condition tied to the Community Building. – JH - Stated that the Community Building was always part of the plan, though not scheduled first due to financial constraints. Highlighted project delays caused by cease-and-desist orders, denials to use hammering for ledge removal, and other limitations. Reaffirmed commitment to completing the project, noting that community amenities were designed to encourage neighbor interaction. Requested release of occupancy permits, arguing that the buyers should not be penalized. BG: Acknowledged improvement in site appearance and water drainage. Observed excavation had begun for the Community Building, indicating intent to proceed. CT: Reiterated the importance of the Community Center for this rural residential development and its originally approved plan. Shared concerns about multiple letters received requesting the board to waive the Community Building requirement. Proposed a performance guarantee (e.g., a bond) as a possible solution to allow occupancy permits to be released while securing completion of the building. Explained the statutory options for performance guarantees and offered to consult with the Building Commissioner and City Solicitor to determine appropriate terms. Confirmed willingness to revisit the matter at the April 24 meeting. – JH - Asked for clarification on performance guarantees, timelines, and financial implications. Noted that tying up funds in a bond would limit his resources for completing the building. Board Member Comments: Mr. Talbot, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Reynolds expressed general support for the Chair’s proposed path forward (performance guarantee). Conditions Review: CT: Condition #10 (Drainage); conducted a site visit and observed no standing water, even after rainfall. The board agreed it appears satisfied. CT: Condition #3 (Monthly Reports), as satisfied to date. Future reporting may be required based on final resolution. CT: Condition #14 (Recreation/Community Building), remains outstanding. CT: Condition #27 & #30 RT: Condition #27 references other conditions (#10 and #14). CT: Condition #14 is still open, thus #27 cannot be fully marked as satisfied. JB – Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-2023-08 under 181. to Grant a Continuance on the Review to April 24, 2025, noted that conditions #10 and #29 been satisfied, continuing all other conditions as follows: 1. No blasting or rock crushing may be conducted on site. No rock hammering, and no screening or other processing of earth materials may be conducted on site, after December 31st, 2023. 2. No earth removal, as defined in the zoning ordinance, may be conducted on site. 3. Applicant may construct no more than seven additional residential units, according to the August 13, 2023 Dillis & Roy plan as modified on September 13, 2023 – Sheet C2, with Unit 22 on the plan (closest to turnabout) to be turned to provide shortest connection distance to utilities. 4. Hours of construction are limited to Monday through Friday 8:00AM to 5:00PM; no construction work on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays. 5. The applicant shall employ dust mitigation measures during construction and regrading. 6. Not to be operated as a public nuisance. 7. Site to be kept clean of construction debris and dumpsters to be emptied regularly, and all stored construction equipment be moved to the end of Nijal Ct., during construction. 8. On site toilets to be provided for all construction workers. 9. Applicant shall notify drivers of any construction vehicles servicing the property not to exceed the weight limit of the Rindge Rd. bridge or any other bridge in the area, and shall provide a copy of said notices to the Building Department within 30 days of the date of the original decision, or at such times that the construction vehicles are hired thereafter. 10. Drainage to be diverted from abutter’s property per Dillis & Roy plan dated August 13, 2023 and screening provided, both to be constructed and maintained pursuant to the requirements of the Conservation Commission, DPW and DEP (Satisfied 4/8/2025) 11. The following work shall be completed by December 31st, 202. (Satisfied) i. Remove existing stockpile excess material so long as the same does not constitute earth removal as defined in the City Ordinance, but no loam may be removed from the property. (Satisfied) j. All rock hammering on site shall be completed. (Satisfied) K. All processing of excess material, which is limited to screening, to be completed. (Satisfied) l. Rough grading of the road and installation of utilities and drainage in the road according to said Dillis & Roy plan dated August 13, 2023. (Satisfied) m. Paving of the driveways on existing homes. (Satisfied) n. Regarding of the home sites, including rough grading on new sites, on the premises. (Satisfied) o. Any erosion controls required to prevent further erosion of the existing slopes to be placed as necessary, and any degrading ledge shall be evaluated by a design professional and stabilize in accordance with their recommendations. (Satisfied) p. Outside perimeter of the project area to be regarded, loamed, restored and seeded, preferably in the style of the natural rural character of the area prior to construction. (Satisfied) q. Operation maintenance plan of the storm water drain system to be filed with the DPW and to be updated at least every three years. (Satisfied) r. Applicant shall be subject to a daily fine of $300 if all of the above items are not completed by December 31st, 2023 (Resolved) 12. No building permits for any additional manufactured units to be installed on cement pads shall issues until condition 11 has been satisfied. (Released 1/9/24) 13. All remaining home pads and final connections for laterals and electrical utilities to be installed and the road paved by July 1st, 2024. (Satisfied) 14. The Recreation Unit servicing the development residents shall be completed and open for use by the residents. Recreation building to be at least 28 feet by 48 feet and consistent in design with the remaining neighborhood structures. (Modified as of September 24, 2024) 15. All manufactured home units shall have been installed and the project completed by November 20th, 2024. (In Progress) 16. Special permit to be recorded within 60 days of the original decision. (Satisfied 17. Permit holder shall maintain all of the ways depicted on all plans that are subject to this special permitting as private roads and not as public ways. Permit holder shall not petition for acceptance of the private roads as public ways by the City. 18. Failure to maintain the integrity of the pavement in the road and infrastructure, water, sewer, storm water and electric systems, as well as plowing shall subject permit holder to a $300 fine per day for violation of conditions. 19. Permit holder and property owner shall convey and record a conservation easement over the unbuilt land at the northeast perimeter of the premises encircling the turnabout at the end of Nijal Court to a nonprofit entity or an abutter with no financial interest in the premises, which shall at a minimum prohibit development of that area, or improvement except as depicted on said plan. This easement shall contain or be appended to an engineered or surveyed plan depicting the exact of the easement. (Satisfied) 20. This easement in executed form shall be submitted to the Building Department and the Board no later than January 4 th, 2024 and shall be recorded at the Registry of Deeds by January 9th. Violation of this condition shall constitute sufficient grounds for revocation of the Special Permit by the Board (Deadline extended – see Condition #24) (Satisfied) 21. Review Date – April 24, 2025 (Amended 4/8/2025) 22. No further fines beyond the initial $300.00 assessment should be assessed to the permit holder for violation of the conditions so long as she continues expeditiously to seek approval, execution and recording of conservation easement, and satisfaction of all other conditions of the special permit. 23. A site visit during the month of April shall be scheduled by the permit holder through the Building Department for the Board Members to review the issue of screening for the abutters. (Satisfied) 24. Permit holder shall seek approval of the proposed conservation easement in form substantially the same as submitted to the City Council at its January 4th, 2024 meeting, expeditiously, and shall submit and record the easement once approved and executed by the City, but in all cases on or before April 1 st, 2024. If the City or the Permit holder fails to approve and execute the proposed easement in substantially the same form, or the Permit holder fails to record the executed easement, both on or before April 1st, 2024, the Permit holder must submit a proposed alternative conservation easement for review to the Building Department and the Board meeting the requirements of condition 19, and execute and record the same. (Satisfied) 25. No certificate of occupancy shall issue for the two final units on the right of Nijal Court shall be issued until Conditions 19, 20, and 24 have been satisfied. (Modified on July 9, 2024 – see Condition #27) 26. Condition #22 amended and condition #23, 24 & 25 added on January 9th, 2024. Condition #27 added by the Board on July 9, 2024 and modified on September 24, 2024. 27. The Certificate of Occupancy on one unit shall be withheld until conditions #10 and #14 have been satisfied. (Modified September 24, 2024 – See Condition # 30) 28. Permit holder shall construct the Recreational Unit substantially in accordance with the submitted architectural plans by Finelli Group, Inc. dated 9/18/2024, and the engineered plan by Dillis and Roy dated 3/27/2024, with the two amendments dated 1/8/2024 and 1/18/2024. The plot plan depicting the entire development shall be amended to reflect the changes and the changed plan submitted to the Building Department within 45 days. An  as-built plan shall be submitted to the Building Department upon completion of the Recreational Unit. (Added September 24th, 2024) 29. The proposed location change of the Recreational Unit shall be submitted to the Building Department to be reviewed as to its location inside or outside the wetlands buffer zone and the permit holder shall comply with any requirements of the Conservation Commission and shall comply with any conditions or orders of conditions that are issued by either body. (Added September 24th, 2024) 30. The Certificate of Occupancy on the final two residential units shall be held and released upon full completion of the project with all conditions having been met and all inspections with city departments completed. (Added September 24th, 2024) 31. Permit holder shall submit a written report to the Zoning Board of Appeals two business days prior to its meeting each month until the project has been completed. (Added September 24th, 2024) Voted 5–0 to Grant the Continuance to April 24, 2025 with conditions. ZBA-25-3 Todd Anderson 208 BEMIS RD 7:30PM Special Permit under §181.333 of the City of Fitchburg Code to alter the pre-existing nonconforming 6’ X 6’ freestanding sign by installing a 35” X 63” LED message center into the pre-existing nonconforming sign frame constructed less than 10-feet from the side property line, which may “flash, rotate, make noise, move, or give the illusion of moving” as prohibited by § 181.5362. Pursuant to §181.94 located in the Neighborhood Business District Map 123 Block 10 Lot 0 (To be continued to April 24, 2025) CT: Without objection I am going to open the public hearing. I don't believe that the applicant is present as he was previously informed of the anticipated request for continuance. However, the building commissioner informed the board one individual was present and wanted to make a comment on the matter, In the interest of fairness, the board would hear the individual’s comment prior to entertaining a motion to continue the matter. Diane Tusignan, of Bemis Road. I wanted to voice my objection to the proposed signage on Bemis Road. I concerned over the increase in bright, flashing signs in the area, such, The Credit Union and Saint Bernard's Elementary along John Fitch Highway. The applicant currently has a sign that, in my opinion, is sufficient and effective. In respect for, dimming the lights a little bit, not having so much excitement in a neighborhood. I don't know maintaining a quieter, visually intrusive environment, the importance of dimming lights and minimizing excitement in a residential neighborhood. It sounds the proposed sign, I may flash, rotate, make noise, move, or give the illusion of movement. I don't think I would like that in my neighborhood. CT: Is there any other person who wanted to speak on this matter? None CT: Noted that there will be a longer opportunity to speak at an at April 24 meeting. JB: Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-25-3 under §181.333, §181.5362 & §181.94 to Grant a Continuance on the matter to April 24, 2025, under petitioner’s mutual agreement. BG: Motion Seconded. Voted 5–0 To Grant the Continuance to April 24, 2025  ZBA-25-4 Jon Collins 39 ARLINGTON ST 8:00PM Appeal to Overrule the Building Commissioner’s 2/6/2025 zoning determination under §181.92 of the Fitchburg Zoning Ordinance that the premises would be used as Boarding or Lodging house, which use is prohibited in the Residential B District under §181.313A5, and which use was not disclosed on the Form of Intent (FI-24-218) proposal to continue the use as a single-family dwelling, requesting that the cease and desist order on the Building Permit (B-24-1328) be lifted. Applicant also request a reasonable accommodation on the basis that the premises have a possibility of being operated as a sobriety house, so-called, for individuals in recovery from substance abuse, who are therefore disabled individuals entitled to protection under state and federal law and reasonable accommodation from zoning requirements, the premises is located in the Residential B District Map 18 Block 21 Lot 0 (To be continued to April 24, 2025) CT: The Board would entertain a motion to continue the matter to April 24, 2025. Before proceeding with the motion, I want to note the importance of placing on record a recent legal development relevant to the matter at hand, and was also communicated to the applicant. The city has received a favorable decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the case of Bak Realty versus the Fitchburg Zoning Board of Appeals, which dealt with a request for a Dover amendment exemption from zoning, specifically concerning a sober home operating as a lodging house. The Board Members might remember this case, which had been previously discussed. Due to the efforts of our city solicitor, city’s insurance counsel, and former city solicitor, Attorney Pusateri for their roles in achieving a successful outcome for the City. This was significant and long-standing issue, with contributions from the Building Department, Board of Health, and the Fire Department, among others. The applicant in the current matter had been informed of the legal development to ensure they had an opportunity to respond to the recent change in law. The applicant had signed an extension agreement, for the April 24 hearing date and was fully supportive of the extension. JB: Motion in the affirmative on ZBA-25-4 under §181.92 & §181.313A5 to Grant a Continuance to April 24, 2025, under a mutual agreement RT: Motion Seconded Voted 5–0 to Grant a Continuance to April 24, 2025 4. MISCELLANEOUS ● - Proposed amendments to fee schedule in Rules & Regs. 5. ●Continuation of Remote Attendance after expiration of COVID-era rules 6. ADJOURNMENT - JR: Motion to Adjourn - Unanimously Approved