Zoning board continues special‑permit review for Pine Street property as owner refines parking options

The Gardner City Zoning Board of Appeals on March 18 voted to continue consideration of the special‑permit compliance review for 163–165 Pine Street (Parcel ID R22‑6‑8) to allow the applicant to submit updated parking plans and related legal documents.

The item matters because the board must resolve whether the property meets conditions tied to its special permit before permanent occupancy can be granted. The applicant says the dispute centers on an as‑built parking layout that differs from the approved site plan and on whether two additional off‑street spaces can be provided either on site or by easement to a nearby property.

Attorney Christine Tree, representing the property owner, said the owner obtained a building permit on March 13, 2025, to address a previously identified landing issue and that the remaining outstanding matter is compliance with the approved site plan for the parking area. Tree told the board that the contractor hired to build the approved parking plan did not construct the lot as shown, producing a shortfall of roughly eight feet that eliminated two rear spaces. Tree said the applicant obtained engineering plans and a building permit but then encountered unexpectedly large construction cost estimates and safety concerns tied to the method of construction, which she said ranged “between about a hundred and 50 and $200,000” for the two spaces.

Because of the cost and concerns about worker and site safety, the applicant presented three options to the board: (1) construct a retaining‑wall modification at the rear of the property to create the missing space, (2) record a permanent easement to use two off‑street spaces on another property roughly 1,100 feet away, or (3) reduce the number of rental units (remove the eighth unit). Tree and the applicant’s representative said reducing units would make the property financially infeasible; the applicants supplied city staff an analysis that estimated the average rent per unit across the owner’s portfolio as $1,297.76 and asserted a $21–$31 per‑unit monthly impact across 55 managed units for some options.

Board members asked repeatedly about emergency‑vehicle access, maneuvering aisle widths, and how an occupied space might affect fire department access to the rear of the building. Tree said the building is fully sprinklered and acknowledged the rear aisle is tighter than the 24‑foot standard maneuvering aisle but said the narrower configuration is similar to the originally approved plan and that vehicles could be backed out if necessary. The chair asked staff to request comment from the town fire chief and for the building commissioner to review the revised drawings.

Several commissioners also focused on the alternate‑parking option. The applicant offered to create two spaces on a separately titled parcel about 1,100 feet away and record a permanent easement and maintenance agreement to ensure lighting, snow removal, pothole repair and long‑term maintenance obligations are assigned and funded. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide a draft form of easement and a maintenance agreement spelling out snow removal, lighting electrical arrangements, and a plan for long‑term pavement upkeep and repair. The board also requested dimensional drawings showing turning radii and maneuvering aisles for each proposed option.

Before adjourning the agenda item, the board voted to continue the matter for one month so the applicant could file: (a) updated site plans with dimensions and turning radii, (b) a proposed form of easement and maintenance agreement for the alternate property if that option is pursued, and (c) a letter from the building commissioner stating the status of outstanding inspection and occupancy items. The motion to continue passed unanimously.