Gardner ZBA continues special-permit hearing on parking, lighting and survey stakes at 163–165 Pine Street

The Gardner City Zoning Board of Appeals on a continued hearing July 15 continued consideration of a special permit and site changes for 163–165 Pine Street, requesting additional documentation on the property line, a refined lighting plan and an agreement with an abutter about grading and runoff before the board votes.

The hearing matters because the proposal would formalize two “buddy” parking spaces and altered rear parking and circulation for an occupied multiunit building; neighbors said the changes could affect snow removal, runoff and the foundation of an adjacent house. Attorney Christine Tree, representing the owner, told the board she would provide a survey plan with staking of the north boundary line as a condition of the permit if the board requested it.

Board members spent the meeting reviewing revisions to a Mackenzie Engineering plan the applicant filed after earlier meetings. The updated plan added two notes on the site drawings — one indicating that a jersey barrier shown is “designed by others” and intended as a safety measure rather than a retaining wall, and an exterior-lighting note describing fixtures the applicant proposed. The lighting description in the submission referenced fixtures of about 7,000 lumens and 3,500 kelvin and said lights would be directed downward and away from abutting properties.

Neighbor Aaron Holmes, who lives at 238 West Street, spoke in opposition and described recurring problems with snow being deposited in his front yard during storms and a visible “X” on his vacant building placed long ago by the fire department. “Snow was plowed from both sides of my house into my front yard,” Holmes said. He also said stone and foundation elements at the shared property edge concern him if parking or construction activity increases runoff or requires regrading.

Attorney Tree acknowledged the survey staking was not yet complete and said the petitioner had switched surveyors after the originally hired firm could not schedule the needed field staking; she said a survey crew had done initial fieldwork and planned to return to stake the line later in the week. Tree proposed as a condition that a survey plan showing the north boundary and all parking spaces within the subject lot be submitted before issuance of a building permit and as a condition of the special permit.

Board members questioned the level of detail in the lighting submission and asked for a more explicit product-level lighting depiction or photometric (lighting) layout showing mounting heights, shielding and measured spill (footcandles) so the board could verify light would not “bleed” onto neighboring properties. One board member suggested a motion-activated light on each landing or motion sensors for exterior doors to improve nighttime safety for tenants using the rear stair landings.

Members also discussed the proposed edge protection at the end of the rear parking area. The plan shows a jersey barrier two feet from the back end of a buddy parking space; the applicant clarified the barrier is not intended as a retaining wall. The board discussed alternatives, including a simple guardrail fastened by driven posts or a short curb or “ridge” to direct runoff away from the abutter’s foundation. The applicant said minimal fill would be used and that the intent is to scrape and regrade the existing asphalt, level highs and fill lows, and repave rather than bringing large volumes of fill.

The board and parties agreed that direct communication between the abutter and property owner could resolve several practical concerns. Chair Ray Lafond asked the parties to try to negotiate written resolutions for issues such as driveway pitch, a small ridge or curb to keep runoff on the applicant’s property, a snow‑removal and salting agreement with the property manager, and whether to use a pinned guardrail or a jersey barrier for vehicle protection. Attorney Tree said she would present any written agreement at the next meeting.

With these items outstanding — a stamped/staked survey, a more detailed lighting/product or photometric depiction, and documentation of either an abutter agreement or survey stakes locating the lot line — the board voted to continue the hearing to August 16. The continuation was moved and seconded and carried by voice vote.

The continuation means the building remains occupied under its current occupancy status while the board considers the special-permit modifications tied to parking layout and safety measures. The board said it preferred written, product-level lighting details and either a completed survey with staking or a signed agreement between the two property owners confirming the driveway and parking location before taking a final vote.