we're open our planning board meeting on Wednesday April 16th 2025 i have an announcement that I must make announcement of open meeting recordings any person may make a video
or audio recording of an open meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium subject to reasonable requirement of the chair that as to the number placement and operation of equipment
used so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting any person intending to make such a recording shall notify the chair forth with all documents referenced or used during the
meeting must be submitted in duplicate to the director of community development and planning person pursuant to the open meeting and public records law all documents shall be become part of the
official record of the meeting uh is there anyone here making a rec a recording or wishing to speak no i hear see none we'll open our public
meeting and we have a presentation I believe from Christine Tree yes esquire esquire um commonly used that's that's uh my preferred title um thank you board
members um for hearing this petition tonight this petition is one I've presenting for a zoning amendment i am presenting it on behalf of the petitioner Chair City Church pastor Dave Trongo of Chair City Church is here with
us and he can help me answer any very specific questions about the project um um for which uh which spurred us to ask for this zoning amendment um I am going to go through the amendment today i am
going to um describe the project that we want to embark on because I do want um the board to understand that of course we have a private interest in asking for this amendment i want to make that clear um I understand yep yep we have an
interest but that uh the consideration of this board and the city council is is this appropriate for the city of Gardner um and so I am going to address both issues i also want to be very clear that
um the amendment that we're asking for will still require my client to seek a special permit for the project that he will do so the passing of the amendment does not remove gardener's discretion in
whether or not to allow the specific project um that we want to accomplish okay um so what we are proposing is an amendment that provides special protections or
provisions to allow people with historic properties um to take measures uh geared towards their preservation their rehabilitation or maintenance while preserving their
historic architectural or cultural uh characteristics by using um uh expanded uses other than we would be available in the district um re relaxation of dimensional
requirements um relaxation of parking and loading and signage um so the amendment is a recognition that historic properties have a special
benefit to the city um and recognizing that preserving these properties provides that special benefit that is kind of unique um relative to what we normally deal with in the zoning and planning context that some special allowances may
be permissible on a casebyase basis okay um and uh the structures that we're talking about are structures or sites that are on the National Register the his uh local Massachusetts register um
the MACRIS list which is an inventory list kept by the Massachusetts Historical Commission or Gardener Historical Commission's own inventory of historic assets um as we go through this um I'm
going to give an overview i'm going to talk about our interest i'm going to go a little more in depth into the amendment um but I do want to let everybody know um we had tried to kind of circulate between various parties and
interest in the city um a historical commission we were very thankful had a very nice and productive meeting with us um the city solicitor's office has had a review um planning building mayor's office and so we've received some
feedback throughout this process where the original draft that was circulated is different from what was submitted as a petition um and we tried to incorporate feedback from all of the parties in that i will try to highlight
the feedback that we got when I go through um briefly the differences in the two versions um hopefully that will address any questions so this historic preservation um special permit would be available to
eligible eligible structures or sites in all zoning districts and I'm going to note that um uh one of the historical commission members this is a modification from the original version
that he particularly noted um we had originally started out not including industrial districts um because it's not necessary to our particular project and I always I don't want to over encroach on what Gardner wants to do um but the
comment we received is that there are numerous structures everywhere that could benefit from this uh special permit including um vacant and abandoned mill buildings that could perhaps be rehabilitated as residential housing um
and so we did expand to all zoning districts i am a little sore throatated today so I apologize if I keep sipping on my water um and we've gone through what what would be an eligible structure or site
um we did originally have a procedure for the historical commission to also designate um something as a historical structure or site but the historical commission already has the ability to have its inventory of historical assets
um and it can use that procedure we don't need to invent a new one um in order to uh have an owner whose property hasn't yet been designated um approach the historical commission
and ask for uh determination of eligibility um and then the ZBA would issue the special permit um and the historical commission's involvement in that process would be to have 60 days to
make a recommendation on whether or not the project uh preserves or maintains the historic structure or site so the standard for the ZBA in approving a project would be um does the proposed
uh relief um so the proposed special permit with the um uh changes in dimensional relief or use um does it make a contribution or or substantially preserve
um maintain or restore a historic structure or or site um again originally uh I had looked at this with some new special permit criteria that were very specific to historic structures that was
in the original version um and through conversation with the solicitor's office but also with the chair of the ZBA who had a concern about introducing new elements um of criteria of special permit criteria rather than the
traditional ones um was would this uh create a problem under chapter 48 was it allowable um do we need to do this are we just creating problems so we reverted to the regular special permit criteria
but a different standard for allowance um the ZBA as always may condo uh impose conditions as part of a special permit um and those conditions uh would be geared towards making sure
that the important elements are preserved um as I am sure you all know a special permit goes on record at the registry of deeds in order to be used so all of those conditions would be um of public record and available to any
future owner of the property um and in fact should be pointed out to them uh during the purchase process because it's a special permit with conditions um the compliance with those conditions can be monitored with
the traditional enforcement tool um and that is any person may make a complaint for enforcement to the building department um or uh the building department may bring to the attention of the zoning board non-compliance with the
conditions and the zoning board may bring the permit holder property holder back in for review um so that is something that can happen um attorney did you want to intervene
okay okay sorry about that um within this petition we have some other provisions that uh uh try to integrate this we are introducing a new section uh to the zoning ordinance um
therefore we're adding an amendment to the table of uses uh which does state by special permit in all districts um we're adding uh three items to the definition section and that is historic structure historic site and preservation project
um and then we have amendments relative the park to parking relief which make the relief available within the special permit consistent with the parking provisions um this is our interest uh on Chair City
Church in the amendment um Chair City Church has recently brought uh 100 central street um everyone may remember that as the convent at Sacred Heart um it is next door to the uh former Sacred Heart Elementary which is now Chair City
Church and Chair City Diner which hopefully everybody has eaten at because it's quite good um this house is on MRIS so it's a historic site but I want to explain why it's important to gardener i'm sure all of you know this before I say that uh it
was built by Henry Haywood henry Haywood was a major contributor um to the economic cultural and historical rise of Gardener um among other things he had the Haywood Chair Manufacturing Company
um and uh contributed substantially to the furniture industry in Gardener um he also uh is the namesake for our hospital in Gardener this house uh was built prior to 1869 which is as far as I know about
it um it was built uh for Mr haywood and his wife and then their daughter uh Martha uh Helen continued to live there after Martha's death through 1921 at which point it was bought by Sacred Heart Church and the Roman
Catholic Dascese and it became a convent from that point forward um the arch dascese in recent years did have it uh allowing to be used for daycare um and then the purchase by Chair City Church
um but what has happened as a result of this ownership um by the convent for so many decades immediately following ownership by the original family is that the interior of this structure is both
fantastically ornate and incredibly preserved um I've been in a fair amount of historical houses in the area because I frankly love to go on the historical house tours and look at the inside of other people's houses but um I this is
this is something unusual many of you may have seen it because you went to the school um but I just I I cannot emphasis emphasize how much of an asset this is to gardener and what a shame it would be if somebody bought it for a regular
single family home gutted it and and modernized it um I think a lot would be lost now generally what Chair City Church would like to do is a combination of uses um on the first floor which is
both the most ornate and the best preserved um they would like to open a a cafe and I know you're saying they already have a diner why do they need a cafe um a because they are people who very much like to be involved in the community um but this is a a different
type of establishment so this would be primarily high-end coffee tea pastries um they look at it as a place for a community meeting discussion and appreciation by the general public um so this is serving a different purpose than
the diner that's on the other side um and we think it's it's definitely a different as atmosphere um and clientele there are three meeting rooms and um I'm just going to say that pictures don't quite convey uh what is
in this house but the original trim the original fireplaces the original fixtures the original um uh ceiling murals are in there um and again if they
can be preserved and uh enjoyed by the entire community as a public space um uh this would serve both the owner's mission and I think the public um interest so there are three gathering
spaces um the details in this include uh window benches uh cabinetry um uh very ornate trim this is an example of one of the fireplaces that is in there you can see the ornate iron back within the
fireplace um this is gathering room three um again another fireplace stained glass windows um are in a little seating nook that has Wayne scating
um this is another example of even the in the bathroom you have this type of fireplace uh available to view um again uh there would be a service bar and that uh would be used for service uh
in gathering room 3 here's an example of one of the ceilings if you can see the detail on that um and uh I'm not sure that the wooden fans there are quite original but I I will say the rem the remainder of it is stunningly
beautiful um see a a detail of that right there um as well as yet another fireplace and if you can see the cabinetry it has a rounded bottom with a glass in top um we're now going to move to the back half of the first floor
which has I think had um a little bit of uh 70s conversion to it uh to make it a functional kitchen um uh but it is certainly not uh the main area that uh offers offers that historic
preservation um and here's a last look uh I do think that uh pantry section in the back is probably original um and those would be the back stairs on the second floor and then in the basement if the basement can be so
converted um they are looking to operate a human services program and uh this is uh a use that has already been confirmed by the building commissioner as an appropriate description it is going to
be counseling services as well as social services being offered there connections to um important resources within the community um group meeting rooms individual counseling rooms um operated in the other two floors of this
structure basement and second floor there is architectural detail on the second floor worth preserving it is not as ornate as on the first floor um but it still offers some fairly uh
unique elements and uh spaces that it is really nice to be able to offer to a community of people in need um and that's another one again the fireplace has been bricked in and yet
there is a little or um iron door there i'm going to ask if my the historical commission member knows but um I'm thinking that might have been a conversion to coal um from a wood burning fireplace but again really unique
features so that is our project um we do have a possibility there is a third floor um with some living space in it um the church has its missions that it tries to fulfill and that space might
be used for some emergency housing for people in need um it is not a large proportion of the space there but it is possible use of the property so why do we need an an amendment to contemplate doing this
um first of all that cafe which is really an essential element of this project um is not allowed in the GR3 district it's not not a permitted use in any way so we would be uh required to get a use variance in order to conduct
that use um use variances are rarely allowed i will say we did obtain one for the Sacred Heart building for the diner um I uh appreciate uh the ZBA but I don't know that they are willing to
extend that many use variances um the criteria we would have trouble meeting um and it's just it's a limited remedy um the next issue is that we do have between the convent property and the
sacred heart approximately 101 spaces available um we've tried to estimate where the number of spaces will be needed um it some of it is dependent on seats in the cafe square footage um dedicated to the religious
use right now it's between 97 and 103 spaces uh that we think are going to be needed but again they're allocated between the two properties um the dimensions the um uh maneuvering
aisle may be non-conforming as to the requirements under the zoning ordinance um so some relief may be needed there and then this is the big one these this is multiple principal uses within one
structure on one lot and um our zoning ordinance um I this is a question that I argue back and forth a bit with our good building commissioner on whether or not we can have multiple principal uses in one structure in one lot you do have a
mixeduse definition in the ordinance but it does not cover this kind of mixed use it's intended for a home with professional office that's what it's intended for um and so that uh kind of mixeduse availability
um is not available uh this is where we're looking for the amendment to happen um we're looking for appropriate bases on which it to happen um and uh given the nature of the
building uh we're looking at uh allowing um some relief based on its historic character characteristics um this so this is a problem that pastor Dave came to me with
over a year ago um and last year I was at the citizen planner to planner to collaborative conference CPTC conference that is given annually um and the mass historical commission was putting on a
segment on how can you use zoning to promote historic preservation um and this idea of be a being able to modify or offer relief through special permit um to a historic structure or
site um originated from that session so um what I'm trying to do here is put into effect gardener's own historic um zoning amendment uh based on that uh recommendation from the Mass Historical
Commission um and based on our review of several other municipalities ordinances um and I believe it was uh North Reading Framingham um yeah yeah lexington um and then the
one where the marathon starts i'll come up with that name in about two minutes hopington hopington thank you um all of these municipalities have different versions um the version that
I'm proposing for gardener is an incentive not a restriction um many other communities uh approach it from a restriction point of view so they'll have for instance something called demolition delay where if you're a
designated historic structure you can't do anything until uh if there is a demolition delay imposed by the historical commission um which means um usually they have an automatic 12-month delay period in which they negotiate
with you what you are and are not going to change um that's not the approach that I think is right for gardener at this point in time i think we have a lot of economic needs in gardener that need to be served while we're doing this so
what this is is an offer of a carrot to property owners who might want to do something with their property that's a little different they might have some problem to resolve it's a historic structure and they're willing to preserve it um that way uh the community
gets the preservation it also gets the benefit of an owner putting money into their property without taking money of the community to do that um so this is this is not a grant program um you know
if Gardner does ever get to the point of something like passening the Community Preservation Act um which would add um a small percentage up to 3% uh to property taxes every year um and I'm just want to
say I'm not suggesting that that's not what I'm suggesting um I I know I know but if that ever was something they were inclined to do that could result in the creation of a fund that could be used um to make grants or purchase easements
over properties um that would uh ensure this historic uh preservation but right now um we're using incentives um in uh a relaxation of the rules um and there's all of my municipalities up
there Framingham North Reading Hopington and Lexington um the initial uh provision in the uh proposed ordinance which I am going to follow through at attachment A
um to the petition the initial provision is about purpose and so purpose is important in the enactment of this um zoning ordinance uh we want to encourage and
provide incentives for preservation and improvement of historic building structures and sites um and the reason that it's important is because we don't want to by this ordinance fall a foul of
something called spot zoning um and spot zoning is where uh we have zoning that is favorable for one specific or or a limited number of property owners in discretion of the city or town
not with objective criteria and reasoning on which to base the differential treatment so we have our purpose here and we have our definitions of what is an eligible property historic
structure or historic site and they are based on objective criteria um and the purpose is legitimate to the town and between these two factors we avoid having a spot zoning
problem even though the properties are located all over town and not in one specific area paragraph B is about applicability um so this special permit pro provision is available in all zoning districts again
um thanks to the suggestion from Chris Pah um of the historical commission um it is only for a historical structure site um and if we do want to uh take a
moment to review those definitions um on the first page of the petition both of the definitions are in there um so the general definition is any building structure architectural element or site
or of historical architectural or cultural significance that contributes value to the city um so you know I don't know that every uh post rail in um in gardener is of value
to the city um but we what we do is provide um other than that definition some very objective criteria for which to deem a property or a structure eligible and that is included on the national or state register of historic places the
MACRIS inventory of historic places that's maintained by Massachusetts Historical Commission or by inclusion on the Gardener Historical Commission's inventory of historic assets
um I did uh bring with me um and I think I I have the numbers uh later in the presentation but I do have uh a copy of the list of um assets that
are on uh MACRIS um and uh I brought a few copies uh anyone is welcome to take one um I believe it's something like 200 133 properties um or assets are on the
macros inventory um I also wanted to point out that there are two historic districts in Gardner um that currently exist um and I've uh in this definition been specific that just because you are
within the district doesn't mean any building in the district is eligible as a historic structure um there has to be separately a historic structure designation paragraph C um is about what
relief is allowed um so there is relief as to uses um so the ZDA may permit um a property owner to have a use that is not allowed in that
district but which is allowed by writer by special permit in another residential or commercial zoning district what I did not include is industrial uses so I can see uh residential and commercial kind
of being okay within every zoning district under certain conditions but I do not see um a former factory that is now in the middle of a single family home neighborhood um as appropriate to resurrect as a factory um because the
neighborhood has changed around it and the industrial use of producing rubber tires let's say is no longer something that should be conducted within that neighborhood even though it used to be there um I also included um modifying
some of the standards on bed and breakfasts and in-law apartments home occupations and then senior resident certain senior residential development standards so that's things like uh in the bed and breakfast there is a
definition that the owner must reside on site um so allowing a bed and breakfast to to be operated with without that owner being on site dimensional relief um something I'm sure we're all familiar with varying the
required lot size area frontage yard height restrictions i will also point out that for many but not all of these historic pro properties they may not need that relief because they are pre-existing non-conforming structures
um but it is available um I one of the things that I'm going to point out it's available in is something that is apparently frequently used in the town of Lexington and that is taking a historic structure on a larger property
um like a historic uh farmhouse um they want to bring in some residential development so they would want to subdivide the lot they they would normally demo the building and then just uh develop the whole thing um
but Lexington will allow them through a special permit to subdivide the historic structure the farmhouse into a lot that's smaller than is otherwise allowed in the district sufficient but smaller and then develop the remainder of the
lot um so that's something that uh uh you know would be um available here um and then parking and signage relief um so I'm going to go through the parking uh modifications a little in a
little more detail um but uh modification of the standards generally required for parking areas parking lots access driveways um you have at current a portion of the ordinance that uh I'm
sure certain members of the board will remember that the board and I tussled over which is having uh parking spaces in front of or behind the building um it's uh it's something that I think we differ on the value the value of that
provision um but it that is an example of something that could be modified by the special permit um and then with signage if we have a commercial um use going into an otherwise residential
district um we're only allowed residential signs without further relief and so this would allow the ZBA to offer that relief as part of this special permit um that you may have a commercial sign of so much uh feet and area um in
this district so on parking um and uh so we've listed that as part of the relief that can be offered under the special permit um but we've also listed in the petition the
modifications to section 740 and section I believe 1170 and so the modification in the um zoning or uh zoning petition says delete this add
this insert this there and I know it's a little hard to read sometimes when it's that way um so what I do have for you is the final version um after those amendments are made um and that is uh
this piece of paper and then I have a redlinined from one to the other um I think the red line might be more helpful to you um so again there's multiple copies of that please you're welcome to circulate that the red line shows the original and the proposed changes that's
right that's right so here is the result of the changes to section 740 um which is about relief from parking regulations and it
says relief from parking make regulations may be granted on a finding that the detriment due to the waiver of the parking requirement is outweighed by the benefit to the city or the neighborhood of the proposed use um and
then the effectuated change is that we say by special permit from the ZBA by the planning board under site plan review or special permit so uh we've clarified and simplified the fact
that this relief is available by special permit all special permits are um evaluated under the special permit criteria um or through the site plan review or special permit granting authority of the
planning board um this is the prior version um and it said it it had two instances in which the ZBA could uh grant parking relief um and then uh
uh and then a determination um by the planning board and and it's really I I will say a little unclear to me whether it's at at both site plan review or special permits where it determines that the grant of a waiver would not be
detrimental to the functioning of the site and would not create undue congestion of traffic hazards on or off the site traffic hazards continue to be um a consideration by either board because
it's already part of the special permit criteria so it's not that you cannot consider traffic hazards it's just that it broadens the picture on which to grant relief to either board
um I am going to uh say that this section um did undergo some particular review by the solicitor um and simplification and unification of these sections with the new historic zoning
amendment um was the goal um but I'd also if he had any comment that he wanted to make defer presentation okay the other parking modification was to the special permit section um
criteria and so what you see there at the top is the amended version and at the bottom is the original version so originally this proposal shall provide adequate space for off- streetet parking
loading and unloading of vehicles goods products materials and equipment incidental to the normal operation of the establishment or use um and as amended it states that the
proposal shall contain a plan to provide so I think that's a little bit different um I think it makes clear that not all parking must be provided on the site of the lot that is the subject of the use
um and we also take into consideration um the needs of the use and the use here again is historic preservation so if it's possible on a lot to create more parking but we have to demolish
something or change the characteristic of the lot that is historic um what the boards can take into consideration is that maybe it is more beneficial to the city to have the historic nature preserved than to add
more parking um and the determination might be otherwise because again we're in special permit territory here this does not mandate a finding that we can get reduced parking it just allows for it and it allows a little moderation in the
criteria for doing so procedurally um the ZBA would be the one to issue the special permit my general thoughts with allocation of special permits between ZBA and planning
board is that projects which are more uh more solitary in nature smaller in nature um and which uh offer relief that we don't give out every day should be allocated to the ZBA larger planning
projects where we have a lot of parking where we have you know 40 residential units um those are and obviously subdivisions those are best allocated to the planning board um and so I just
wanted to clarify why the ZBA is the entity that I chose for the special permit um so the ZBA through its rules and ranks of course can adopt procedures
um for the submission of an application um and we have offered should this pass to submit a proposed application that can be used um but what will be clear or what the ZBA can make clear is that the
applicant is responsible for providing proof that it's an eligible property and if they don't provide that upfront with the application it can be rejected as incomplete um which means we don't have to go through this whole thing for somebody who comes in and thinks that
they have a property that is eligible but really isn't on any of the lists in that case they're going to need to either get on one of the lists or go to the historical commission and get on the gardener inventory of historic
assets once the application is made it's a normal special permit application so it goes through the regular procedures um we have to start a hearing within 65 days unless we get an agreement for delay but the historic commission is
going to be sent a full copy of the application their job at this point will be to review the application and to provide a written recommendation to the ZBA on whether or not the proposal preserves the historical and
architectural features um if it is completed according to the submitted plan because we never know whether somebody's going to actually comply that's not something we can ask them to determine if there is no recommendation
from the historical commission within 60 days the ZBA can move forward anyway that does not interfere with the hearing deadlines because once a special permit proceeding is opened it can be continued
um for a reasonable period of time and then once it's closed the clock for decision starts ticking okay so it doesn't interfere with that timeline the involvement of the historical
commission is critical to this being a successful amendment so one of the very first things that I did um was to have a meeting and approach the historical commission and see if this is something that they were interested in doing um
and very kindly I had gotten a affirmative answer with a lot of comments um and and if if there's any comments that uh would like to be made there's I'm sure there's going to be an opportunity for that today
um I had raised one of the uh concerns which was this would be useful in all districts um I have also presented this as a 60 days but we can still go forward if there's no recommendation
um I want this to be something that the historical commission can do i don't want it to be a burden to them um but what I will say is uh that the ZBA is
absolutely going to rely on that recommendation to make an appropriate decision on its special permit and appropriate conditions on its special permit because the expertise on these issues is going to lie with the
historical commission um so I'm very grateful uh that they were willing to play a role in this process the decision criteria um for granting uh the special permit the ZBA has to determine that the preservation
project will provide a benefit to the city by making a substantial contribution to the maintenance preservation or restoration of an historic structure or site and again we're using the standard um special permit criteria and that is a reversion
um uh as I said due to uh due to commentary from multiple parties but most particularly um from the ZBA um the ZBA as with every special permit can attach conditions to the decision um
those conditions other than um other issues which come up should be addressing the preservation of the historic structure or site otherwise why are we granting a special permit um the decision has to be
recorded at the registry of deeds in order for any building permit to be issued under the special permit so again we have a mechanism to make public and make permanent the record of these
conditions just to talk a little bit about the historical commission's involvement um uh we've talked about most of this but I just want to be clear um that again we have these lists if you're on the list
um you have an eligible site or structure who can apply um the historical commission can if they want to participate in this process or a property owner needs help um they can always participate in the process of a
MACRIS application getting a property onto that uh state inventory um or it can set up a pro a separate process through its own rules and regs um for application um uh to be considered on
the gardener historic asset inventory um at the request of the historical commission at an earlier stage I did provide some draft rules and regs for them to use i am sure that they will use a version that they find acceptable um
because they can as everybody adopt its own rules and regs um but this is a suggestion of uh what could be on that inventory um a proof of the historic designation or the age um we had
originally discussed a minimum age of 75 years for a structure um written description of the significance um history of the structure and then photographic documentation of the particular elements
um which would be beneficial because it gives us an approved historic asset inventory um I think that uh should any property owner wish to take advantage of
the special permit it would really behoove them to offer some of this evidence or photographic evidence to the historical commission so its files can be complete or allow someone from the historical commission to come in and do some documentation
um and I have seen the inventory cards of other towns um being very very well documented with the history and the photographic evidence of the elements um as a result of of having
a more involved process i also wanted to note uh this is um the map with the little dots blue both blue and red that show where the um historic sites are according to MRIS so they are
really all over the city um here we go 243 items for the MCRIS inventory i made a judgment call on what would be likely there's some that have been since demolished there are some that are unlikely i thought there were
about 133 properties or sites that were possible developments under a special permit um but that's obviously going to be up to the individual property owner um this the historical commission has seen um I tried to pull a couple
examples of gardener historic assets that might be ripe for um a special permit other than ours um this is a former school building um it is located over at 11 Carter Road um that is the
property card from Mris um and uh it was built in 1789 it is um one of the oldest buildings in Gardener and it was actually moved here from Chapel Street but it's been listed as vacant since 2012 um I'm sure you can see the state
of the property somebody who had maybe a little more leeway in redevelopment might be able to put that property to both better use and better preservation i think if we focus in you can actually see the designation
as a historic schoolhouse um if you can see that through all the bushes the next one um and I I did because I I do do this um this is a property at
uh 378 East Broadway um it is formerly the uh Colonial um Greenwood excuse me um it was a former um public house it was the home of
Jonathan Greenwood it's currently owned by Chris Perah on the historical commission so I did I did pick it out for that but um I'm going to note you know this is a very old house it was a public house it was the center of
communication and commerce on the toll road um it was a Cooper shop as well for many years um and this type of property uh which it has a shown size of its own age um and could benefit it if it could
have an expanded use as an inn or a bed and breakfast or some kind of commercial um establishment on the first floor um could uh benefit from those expanded uses and use that money to better preserve the property
um and then finally this is an example of a project that I had worked on in Gardener um this was uh the former uh Hunter farm um and uh I'm sure many of you know Stacy Kazinskis who is now the
owner of this um she had approached me because she had wanted to turn um the Hunter family farm which was remarkably still in the family still had 10 acres um and uh as a family member she was going to become sole owner of she wanted
to keep this building and what she wanted to do in order to generate sufficient funds to do that was have an Airbnb there now the term Airbnb is in the ordinance it is not defined bed and breakfast is
and we had this issue of you need to reside on the property in order to run a bed and breakfast so we had to go through a proceeding an extended one to have a finding that an Airbnb was allowed but different from a bed and
breakfast and therefore did not require somebody to reside on the property to operate it so that ended up being successful and she was able to open up in a bed and breakfast um but the kicker of this one is about two weeks ago I learned that uh
her family had decided she wanted to actually live there so they stopped the bed and breakfast and moved back in your sister I think her sister did yes yes so um so it it did not turn out uh uh the way that we wanted but having an easier
process to have this use available to her was would have been very helpful rather than trying to go through an invented proceeding in order to make that determination so um this is again going through the
historical commission's involvement um they will receive a copy of the application they have 60 days to issue its recommendation they are welcome to set up rules for this procedure so if they want to have the applicant come before them and present evidence as to
why the project is going to um have a historical uh preservation effect they're welcome to do that as well um and as I said I've I've set up some rules and rags for them um certainly willing to offer more if if
more are needed this is a difference um between the original draft and what was submitted to the city council and that is the inclusion of a preservation easement so
we have different kinds of historical pre of preservations easements under chapter 184 31 through33 that can be held by a municipality or charity um or a nonprofit and uh agricultural
conservation these ones you may be more familiar with but there is one available um as as historical preservation must be approved by the Mass Historical Commission um and we originally approached this project as this is
something that we were willing to have um as a a requirement by the ZBA in order to issue the special permit it is my client's intention to uh really honor and preserve the historical characteristics of this structure and
the site um so I do want to emphasize that um it's something that we are certainly willing to do but objectively of course it's more constrictive on my client than not having an easement um
there were concerns expressed again um at the review of this um that this might be uh considered an exaction and so an exaction is something which is not permissible
um you cannot uh trade a special permit for a grant of property a grant of right a grant of money um and I certainly don't want it to be deemed an exaction um I I know that the historical
commission for very good reasons um would probably prefer to have the easement be part and parcel of this special permit um and the historical commission may be the entity um that could hold and monitor it but as I
explained uh at the beginning um the special permit conditions should include conditions about preservation of the historical features of the property it goes on record at the registry of deeds
um and it is something where by a complaint for enforcement or um some notice to the building commissioner to set up a review hearing before the ZBA non-compliance with the conditions can
be monitored and enforced um so there is an existing mechanism without running a foul of that exaction issue um and the historic commission can certainly of its own initiative keep a list of these properties it will have notice because
it it's going to get a copy of any application um and keep these properties on its list a copy of the decision with the conditions on its list to regularly go out and monitor and make a complaint if there's something that's not being done
appropriately um so that's the way it has been submitted i will say again that um any property owner may offer to grant a preserv historic preservation easement
to the city to the historical commission to a nonprofit or charity um and I think I I'm not going to say that my representations on the tax implications of that are absolutely correct but I I'll tell you my my off-the- cuff
opinion on that i think there is going to be some kind of uh tax credit for donation available if the easement is offered uh as a gift to the city or the municipality or the entity
um it might result in decreased assessed valuation because the property is now subject to restrictions um and I would liken it to an agricultural restriction being placed on a property um I am going to think that
there is some effect to decrease the assessed value um and then as I said uh should you ever um have an adoption of the community preservation act um there is the ability to purchase these easements and a fund um would grow in
with which to do that um so this is again the summation of all the modifications from the original proposal um the procedures for eligibility we're using existing procedures so we're not adding another
one we've expanded the districts available to include all districts within the city um we're going back to using the normal special permit criteria for determination of the um
eligibility and the uh we've eliminated the easement as a required condition um for a special permit that is my presentation um I I don't I I had some discussion on
whether um city solicitor Perry wanted to comment um particularly on the easement issue and the exaction issue um and I don't know whether he does it or not at this time the chair
yes want me to comment yes thank you we need all the information state your name my name is Henus Terry i have the pleasure of being the city solicitor for the city of Gardener okay uh so I think the the first point that we have on my notes as uh attorney 3's
wonderful presentation was happening is that um not to invent something so brand new that it becomes so cumbersome for the boards uh and members of the boards to implement and your applicants that are going to come whether they come before your board or the zoning board
whatever it is you decide yeah so what we're looking to do is make sure that the procedure is expected and is able to be executed in an efficient manner so we saw themes of that where you attorney tree explained that the special permit
criteria which was ve um criteria for making a decision which varied from time to time from the traditional special permit criteria was brought brought back to kind of be modified or conformed to that expected special permit criteria what special permit criteria is which I
am a very big fan of the original uh statement of the special permit criteria is it allows our boards to evaluate what's in the best interest of the city of uh the benefit to the city and the and the impact that the uh project would
have it's a test that we're all like I was on the zoning board uh for a long time in a different city we're all accustomed to applying that test and evaluating it so any change from a a different standard that you've seen in the presentation tonight towards that
has been somewhat uh due to that thinking um um again attorney tree may have said no new elements there's no new factors or no new elements to to um to confuse the issue or to cause us
to get uh bogged down in what happens if uh matter comes before one of the boards and there's a a new test or something or and uh an appeal comes out of that next thing you know we're in court and we're trying to explain well what does this mean how is it to be applied but the
special permit criteria that you already have it's tried and true it's been litigated we have many cases on that um I think the other interesting uh process of this whole um concept is that it is
an an incentive it's not um it's not um um exacting and then we start thinking about well in order for us to give you the opportunity to do a historic preservation project are we going to then in every case and in every instant
extract uh a um uh an easement and so this is one of the big issues I am very much generally speaking from a philosophic it's not me from a philosophical perspective and we're the government here we are and we going to
now start extracting things from people in an authoritative way because someone wants to run a coffee shop on the first floor of their building uh are we going to deny them the opportunity to make a voluntary gift instead and maybe get the benefit of a tax credit so not
necessarily in every case do I think that there would be an extraction i think the historical commission whose authority under the statute is to make recommendations could make a recommendation that said particularly in this case we feel that we should get a
an easement um and these are the reasons why it's fair it's fair for the city and it's fair for the applicant and and the constituents that are going to use that the um the historical commission um becoming
really more of a re recommended recommending uh body is also going to help streamline the process how many um boards or commissions do we want our applicants to go in front of in order to obtain a special permit to run a coffee
shop in a historic building to execute a historic preservation project um I think it should I think it's a great idea to develop the inventory they should go they should participate especially if the historic commission is involved they should evaluate how much information
they could get build a card that's appropriate um but at the end of the day I think they make a recommendation and uh we're fools if we don't follow the expertise and the advice that we receive from our various boards and department heads because they are our experts and
we have to rely on them um the um if we do go with the concept of a um historic easement conservation easement of some type I think a time frame is a very important thing i think it's a very
um I think it's a mistake to say forever on any piece of real estate because what is important to us today the preservation of this structure that's uh that's the genesis of this uh may be at some point in time 50 or 100 years from
now something that has to be demolished or removed uh and so uh whatever the time frame is uh we should really we should consider that and perhaps in my opinion that would be best done on a case by case basis based upon a
recommendation from the historic commission based upon um the evaluation of whatever border commission uh that's going to review the special permit application the um we run into it all the time it seems to be a reoccurring issue and I've been uh with the city now
for just about three and a half months now as the solicitor and every piece of property that I picked up has some type of gift permanent gift restriction permanent other restriction that is requiring us to try to figure out a way what do we do now how do we move forward
and I don't think that's something that we should necessarily be unmindful of that we are necessarily burdening a future generation with the the permanency of what we believe was the right thing to Um so time frame is an important cons consideration
um when we do if you do have this uh we were talking with the building commissioner uh and we will actually install in open gov um part of the process for permitting an evaluation of that um historical uh component to the
property so the special permit will not just be filed and become a record and a piece of paper inside the building file which hopefully someone sees when there's a permit for a demolition but we're actually trying to create a fail safe there so we would want you to know that we'll work on that and try to
execute on that as um and then again um uh trying to streamline everything keeping your standards somewhat consistent making it easier for your applicants and your uh and your board members to uh to execute um thoughtful
thoughtfully and give you some flexibility uh to go by these matters case by case i think that's how this ordinance is is drafted and those are the reasons why I think it's a positive thing thank you thank you thank you councel
sure thank you Mr chairman uh my name is Chris Per i serve on the historical commission and a resident a long time a lifelong resident gardener um the pristine uh attorney tree came before the commission a few months ago along
with pastor Dave to present this project and u from the historical commission point it was a app apropo project in our opinion because it really highlights how you can have a property that is important to gardener and to to
really reuse that so we fully support the project as well as the process that um attorney tree and the applicant is suggesting for this we've had um a few meetings since then
to discuss both with attorney tree and the applicant and just the board itself or the commission itself as far as the process to go through and I know that that's been going back and forth uh amongst our commission attorney Trey Solicer Bruce um to to iron those things
out so we uh we do have and we are in favor of this uh we do I do have copies of a um testimony from the store commission that says that we are in favor uh one of the things that we did have and strongly suggest was including
that easement having heard this evening the recommendations of attorney tree and solicitor Chris Terry um those are valid concerns that we that I think I can't speak on behalf of the commission but we can certainly bring back and the commit commission can still adopt those from a
standpoint of education purposes so if there is a benefit to have a historic easement a preservation easement on there then we can certainly recommend that but certainly not be restrictive in that in our recommendation so as you'll see in the testimony that presenting um
it lists some of the items that we had talked about with regards to a preservation restriction but those are certainly recommendations and those at the time that we made this recommendation at our meeting we knew that this process was going to be discussed amongst the tree and
solicitary for that so uh this certainly flexible but in the end we are in favor of this uh proposed thank you thank you Robert have you anything you want to say uh yeah first and foremost just want to
acknowledge and thank uh my attorney time and effort i want to thank all of you the city solicitor could you speak louder please sure uh I want to thank uh my attorney Christine Sh for bringing this presentation forward her time want to thank the city solicitor as well for
the time Chris Barer and the historical commission also thank you so much for the attention and time and you know the uh the passion that you put into this uh we you know we really do care about our city we are for our city and uh we set
out to do particular projects that we think will uh benefit the city and and in doing that uh bring positive light on ourselves as a as an entity and a community in this city uh we deeply believe in this project uh that it'll be
of benefit to the city uh most people that have come in there have never been in there even lifelong residents of Gardener that have come into that property have never entered into that building and when they do they are unanimously uh impressed with the property intrigued with the property not
only aesthetically uh the uniqueness of it but the the history of it the story of it and uh we our vision is to see people sitting in there for hour 2 hours 3 hours conversing talking having coffee chatting and taking in all of that
history and ambiance we think it's going to be a great benefit for the city thank you Robert and the planning board want to say anything plus minus I'll say this i I think in
the for I've only been here for 3 months in my position and in that time I've had people come in asking about maintaining the soul of gardener we're kind of at the precipice I think with the tearing
of the Greenwood pool with the uh other demolitions happening in the city um there's the future of School Street School and other historic properties kind of hang in the balance of what's going to happen and they're lying kind
of in uh disarray ruins uh whatever you want to call it and offering the opportunity to relax the the zoning for these properties specifically and allowing um what I
would say what I my experience has been is a very passionate community for its city's historical significance and the still existence of its historical properties um along with I've had people
come in asking about you know where can I you know host say a popup or a commercial space and you know there's only a very short list I can offer them for that so I think adopting this amendment kind of you know solves both
of those uh complaints that have come in i've I've come into this position as someone who wants to be communicative as director and as member of the boards that I man but communication is a two-way street and I have to and want to listen to the wants and needs of the
people who come into this into this building and that's I think this amendment specifically addresses the needs that I've I've heard from residents um so I appreciate uh Attorney Tree um and city solicitor in terms of
really going through uh very um thorough representation of of what the need for gardener is in terms of its historic properties as well as the historic commission as well so I thank all three of you for for presenting this
steve Paul I think it's a great idea i do too i think uh the carrot versus stick approach is it's nice to see the the carrot uh you know there's so many buildings you see historic buildings that are just not in use and in disrepair and just allowing them to be
used in creative ways versus just restricting their demolition I think makes a ton of sense absolutely i think I feel the same way is that I became disturbed and upset when the
city council decided to get rid of the Greenwood Memorial Pool uh you probably don't understand how that got there but Haywood Wakefield built that building i'm pretty sure they did and they also supported it
uh through not so much through maintenance but through heat and water and that uh of course the water came out of Crystal Lake but uh that pool was heated and it was heated by the boilers
of Haywood Wakefield and then when Haywood Wakefield sort of became in disarray that terminated and ever since that happened the the devotion to that building ended
because it was no longer a free lunch for the city which to me is a shame i believe the city had an obligation to maintain that building and maintain that asset as a swimming pool even though it it did need improvements
but um I still think the city had an obligation to I only say that as a pri private citizen not as a chairman but um um I don't think there are any negatives
that I need to ask for uh everyone here has spoke in favor of it yes Paul so Mr chairman in that case then hearing all the presentation uh make a motion to recommend that the city council accept Oh I'm sorry sir we do
that while we close the meeting this is a public hearing then we'll go into a regular meeting i make a motion we close the public hearing meeting is there a second second all in favor i I myself
okay so we'll open the a regular meeting now to address the issue at hand and is there any further discussion by anybody that wants to do you think we might want to take
some extra time to study this or are you pretty well sure of this is what you want to do yes yes and I believe we we're under the gun for time also don't we have to get it back to the council
yeah we do yes i think we should move the motion Mr chairman yeah we've had the materials for uh Yes again I'll make a motion to to recommend that the city council accept the uh zoning ordinance as it was presented tonight is there a
second i'll second that is there any further discussion i hear see no discussion uh call for a vote all in favor i all against the motion passes thank you so
much motion to close to Go ahead Mr i'll make a motion we adjourn i second any discussion no discussion all in favor i
I meetings adjourned thank you councelor counselor thank you great presentation